Datasets:

bhavyagiri

/

imdb-spoiler

like 0

Possible Mild Spoilers . . .Warner Brothers and the new director seem to have messed up with this one. Don't believe the hype, it lacks depth and is just the usual 'CGI v Humanity' battle and the CGI boringly wins. If you like computer games you'll love it but if you like films with real characters of depth and soul then forget it. The previous 'Chamber of Secrets' was a really good film with just the right amount of CGI and humour (Dobbie!) with the characters developed substantially from the scene setting first film. Essentially, many of the well crafted layers of the second film have now gone ..The director has missed a real opportunity to look into the (much hyped)teenage angst of the main characters; there being very few facial close-ups or teenage flare-ups. He seems (director) to have just padded the whole thing out with CGI on a big scale which has in fact just diluted some amazing talent there ie. the eagle/horse hybrid and the hilarious ballooning aunt.The mid quarter of the film is very, very boring with a re-run of the first section by time travel! All alittle complex for kids and ultimately very unrewarding.I would give this film 5/10; first film (Philosophers Stone) 6/10 and the second [and best]film (Chamber of Secrets) 8/10

I loved this film. It brings the feel of Christmas, romance, courage and friendship to a new level. The story is about two women switching houses and ultimately finding what they needed and wanted in their lives. Yes, cliché- but the film itself still has plenty of substance and originality with a romantic comedy storyline.Kate Winslet just shines in this film and her character is just so easy to relate to. Cameron Diaz who plays 'Amanda' presented herself well in this film also. Very good acting in this film, especially with the rest of the cast- (Jude Law, Eli Wallach, Jack Black..) Bottom line: I highly recommend this movie for anyone who loves chick flicks, Christmas movies, or just in the mood for a feel good film. This movie will always remain in my winter classics and the reason it being is how lighthearted and great it makes you feel for the characters from beginning to end.

***POSSIBLE SPOILERS*** "Ocean's Twelve" reunites Danny Ocean (George Clooney) and his previously assembled gang of peculiar thieves, by the name of Ocean's Eleven. It seems that their ruthless victim Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia) uncovered their doings and somehow all of their identities, and has a grudge against them along with an urgent threat: pay up or ship out. Thus ensues yet another ingenious scheme by Ocean's Eleven (this time around, as the title suggests, a "twelfth member", Tess Ocean (Julia Roberts) plays a somewhat dominant (and amusing) role in the plot), to rob a prized "golden egg" from a European museum, once again, a seemingly infeasible task which can only be perpetrated by the most cunning, collected, suave, and industrial of minds, as this gang has proved itself to be. A romantic interest for Rusty (Brad Pitt) with the luscious, yet officious Isabel Lahiri (Catherine Zeta-Jones), as well as a new nemesis known as the Night Fox, are just some of the new developments of this splendid crime caper franchise. With a less engineered and more liberated plot structure than its predecessor, "Ocean's Twelve" is not quite as sensational and rewarding, lacking much of the energy and originality, as well as character structure, where the original triumphed. Whereas the first heist was an elaborate, critical operation, the museum heist is more of an intricate game, a jigsaw (even in its logic) and practically a charade with the cunning and elusive Night Fox, and there is significantly less attention devoted to the actual heist than its perplexing, yet engaging, design. Although a few of "Ocean's Eleven" (now Twelve) play a more "central role" in the action (e.g. Linus (Damon) and Tess (Roberts), many of the characters are merely around for show and hardly serve a purpose in the actual heist. And speaking of the heist, the details to the "surprise ending" couldn't be detected by the keenest of observers, at least until the end, which can be either be a baffling and illogical excuse for a resolution, or an exceedingly clever plot structure, that marvelously pieces together every "invisible" detail of the heist as an explanation to how the gang "outfoxed" the Night Fox. Featuring the usual industrial, meticulous, and prudent direction of Steven Soderberg, whose gritty editing translates as pure energy to an exceedingly exciting premise, some fine and jovial acting from all of the leads, adept and subtle plot structure, and a very awesome and stimulating score, "Ocean's Twelve", while not quite equaling its excellent predecessor, is definitely a solid piece of high octane, feel-good, debonair entertainment, and it's enticing, exhilarating, and sexy- a must-see for fans of crime caper films and great escapist fare for the holiday season! ***1/2 out of ****

Schindler's List is almost too painful to watch - a remarkably subdued but traumatically powerful account of the greatest evil ever perpetrated by mankind. I can't watch it without weeping, not just crying, but every time, I just weep. Spielberg sets aside all sense of melodrama and instead gives us not only remarkable characterization in Oskar Schindler, Amon Goeth, and Itzak Stern, but also brings an enormous sense of humanity and dignity to an almost impossible subject. I cannot begin to say what it was like to see this for the first time in the cinema the week it was released - it was simply the greatest film I had seen - it truly captures something about human dignity and hope as well as evil and complacency that go beyond words.I could write about the magnificent production, and filming, grading, editing and care - but above and beyond this there is just the power of the true story - that one man did make a difference is almost impossible to comprehend given the odds and given the circumstances.Cinema at its very very best can capture both the reality and the hyper-reality in a way that no other art form can - Schindler's List does - and it remains a living testament and the most powerful reminder that we all can and must choose good over evil. Schindler's List remains for me one of the greatest, if not the greatest, film I have seen and I always knew it would be my 500th review. Thank you Steven Spielberg, and I hope it will serve always as a reminder why courage and good really matter.

By far the most exciting and vibrant western to emerge in the 90's. George ('Rambo') P. Cosmatos completely overshadowed Kevin Costner's own 'Wyatt Earp' made in the same year and on a much higher budget. Excellent details, with the reconstruction of Tombstone and a little known fact that cowboys indeed wore bright colour silks (sometimes clashing). You would not normally think of Val Kilmer being one of the greatest actors but his portrayal of Doc Holliday is nothing less than superb. With 'Tombstone' you not only get a blinding, western extravaganzer but a damn fine history lesson at the same time. The pace never lets up and all of the skilfully assembled cast are up really up for the job, in the sense that all (including Kurt Russell) give their best ever performances. A brilliant western!

A quiet, contemplative movie with heartbreaking performances by Emile Hirsch and Hal Holbrook. No movie in the last 5 years can match this film's emotional impact. The camera work is beautiful and as innovative as any I have seen in a long time. Penn's direction has taken a quantum leap from "The Pledge" to "Into the Wild". The music, contributed by Eddie Vedder is astonishingly good and fits perfectly within the scenes. Arguably the finest example of American film in recent memory. Unquestionably the best work of Penn's career, in front or behind the camera. Catherine Keener and William Hurt are excellent, as one can usually expect, Jena Malone lends layers to the film with superb narrative work. I am not a polished enough writer to do "Into the Wild" justice but I am not ashamed to say I cried throughout the whole movie.

The violence and filming methods made this movie the most disturbing. I enjoy a good violent film every now and then, but this movie left me with a bad taste in my mouth and a sick feeling in my stomach. Took me 2 hours to finally drift into an uneasy sleep. DEFINITELY not one that I would see again...for sure not letting my 16 year old watch it. The only redeeming quality of the film was the twist at the end.

This is another classic Tarantino film made even more stunning, it being shot in glorious Pana. The plot, dialogue, characters are very much uniquely Tarantino. You would think that it will feel claustrophobic having 90% of the scenes just inside this bar / house but for the whole 2+ hours of it, you will be glued to highly entertaining scrip writing and plot twists. It is engaging enough to have you forget that you were just in a bar / house for nearly 2 hours. The sound score completes the film. And even though we are seeing usual Tarantino actors in most of his films, each and every time he introduces us to characters who are somewhat familiar but then really we are not. This film i can watch again for the years on coming. Classic!

PERFECT.I mean there are so many different movies and shows about the same character and yet this feels so different. After watching the first episode the exact words that came out of my mouth was;"unbelievably incredible."However, i found the 2nd episode in the second season a little dull. It felt more like they had to include the hounds of Baskerville. My favorite scene; of course, first meeting b/w Sherlock and Irene Adler.And how the second season ended,the way they shot him jump off the building.Yes. This should be one of the best shows i have ever watched. I hope the writers don't get carried away with the next season.

This is the best film about X-Men. Good story, lots of action, tense to the very end. After so many years of shooting and after so many movies, this movie is definitely what I've been waiting for all this time. This is the first movie in which we see Logan really using his weapon, every movie with Logan should have been shot like this, but instead we had to watch movies in which he is scratching his enemies like a cat. It is sad that I had to wait so long to see the real X- Men. Because of this and because they killed two people who definitely did not have to kill I would give a lower rating, otherwise they would be 10 regardless of some ambiguities in the movie. I hope they will continue to record X-Men, although I do not know if it will be as before. As the next sequel will be a new acting team, I think movies will not be as before, but it is still waiting for us to see. They need to make use of Hugh Jackman while he is still alive to record another quality continuation. Definitely the best sequel of X-Men. I recommend watching the movie.

The Truman Show may be approached on one level as social satire exposing the emptiness of an American Dream defined by consumerism and purveyed by the electronic media over the last half century. Life in "Seahaven," the vast dome-enclosed set/community in which Truman (Jim Carrey) has been raised under the watchful eyes of a worldwide TV audience of millions, is a sharp and elaborate parody of the corporate sponsored images of middle-class American material bliss and innocence first introduced to mass television audiences through such '50s sitcoms as Ozzie and Harriet, Father Knows Best, and The Donna Reed Show. A closely related target of The Truman Show's satire is the pervasive voyeurism and passivity that has increasingly characterized American social behavior as witnessed in film (ED TV), entertainment television (tell-all talk shows, Reality TV, the talent search genre), and even broadcast news (disaster/victim footage).Yet, on another level, The Truman Show, like Gattaca, The Matrix, Dark City and other more obvious examples of science fiction, deals with broad philosophical themes such as free will versus determinism in human action, subjective versus objective perceptions of reality, the assertion of humanness through existential rebellion, and the quest for an authentic self/ identity. Most immediately, the names and plot functions of the film's two principal characters - "Christof," the megalomaniacal producer/director of a 24/7 reality TV show, and "Truman," the show's eponymous everyman figure - invite the viewer to approach the work allegorically.Legally adopted by a corporation (in a clever parallel to virgin birth), manipulated by the all-seeing all-powerful Christof (Ed Harris) into phony friendship and empty marriage with actor-minions, and psychologically conditioned (i.e. terrorized) into fearing adventure and change, Truman gradually begins to suspect that Seahaven is not the paradise it purports to be. To assert his humanity and escape his artificially prolonged state of childlike ignorance, Truman must ultimately undertake that most mythic of journeys, a Sea Voyage. At its end, he must turn his back on the secure, controlled environment of his "heavenly" father's house and step through a forbidding black passageway that leads to the true human condition: emotional and physical risk, scary freedom, and - perhaps - real love. In so doing, Truman ironically brings to his TV audience (whether they are still capable of appreciating it or not) the very affirmation that the false god of television claims they receive from the contrived "hope and uplift" pabulum the show has been ladling out for 30 years along with its subliminal primary diet of product placement advertisement. In its climactic scenes, The Truman Show reveals Christof to be neither a social visionary nor a benevolent deity. Rather, we learn he has much in common with Orwell's Big Brother and - allegorically - with the implacable, sadistic god that Melville's Ahab imagines is running things behind the sky's impenetrable veil. By literally rending the heaven of his imprisoning universe, Truman navigates his storm-tossed sailing ship toward a completion of the heroic quest that Ahab's mad distraction (and Melville's theological uncertainty) forestalls: he momentarily frees himself and us from the diabolical/divine puller of the chains of human fate. In its final act, The Truman Show recasts the tragic despair of Moby Dick as comic triumph.

Though the cinematography leaves something to be desired, Hancock is an amazingly original film, the likes of which comes out of Hollywood MAYBE once a decade. It takes a bold, fresh approach to the hackneyed & trite superhero genre and challenges its audience with some truly original and unconventional ideas and plot twists. Its characters are fully fleshed out and not the same old one~dimensional cartoons seen everywhere else; its concepts are unique and interesting; and even its special effects feel more real. The allegory of its story line is applicable to real life, and the relationships it shows are motivated by the same values as real relationships ~ not a single note rings false! Hancock deserves to rule the box office for weeks on end ~ and will, no doubt, do so for the more intelligent audiences of the nation.

As usual in Hollywood movies, ignoring decades of oppression of the Palestinians by Israelis, depict the Arabs (Palestinians) as mere terrorists, savages whose only way of life is to kill Jews. I am an atheist (ex-muslim), I don't hate Jews just like I don't hate Christians, Buddhists, or Hindus. In fact, I hate religion and I detest terrorism and violence in any form (physical or emotional),  and firmly believe that violence is never a solution. But when it comes to the Palestinians, decades of suicide bombings, assassination missions, kidnapping of Israelis for prisoner swap, killing, torturing …etc, I can hardly blame them, they are reluctantly goaded to this horrible life style. This is not a way of life, nobody wants to live like this, but when someone loses his home, his land, his freedom, his life … basic human rights trampled on with tank treads, morals will wither and disappear and blind hatred and violence will arise. No western movie has ever depicted the Palestinian oppression by Israelis, how they destroy their homes, their farms, their properties, killing their sons or whoever resists, desecrating their beliefs, plundering their land with their expanding colonies … the list goes on. But the Media always show the Arabs as attacking and the Israelis as defending, never the other way around. No one on earth (including the Arabs) condones what the Palestinian militants did in Munich, it's appalling and inhumane but has anyone ever thought why they did what they did? Those young Palestinians must have had families, children, friends, life …. Like other people on earth they must had their own dreams, prospects …, why would they do this!!! Can anyone Imagine the pressure pushing them toward this kind of violence, this desperation to embark on mission impossible (kidnap the Israeli Olympic team to swap them for Palestinian prisoners) knowing they don't stand a chance? that no one is gonna let them take those hostages no matter what?I'm an Arab but I hate the Arab culture, their obscurantist traditions and customs, their stagnant civilization and most importantly their predominant and violent religion: Islam. I know the influence of Islam on violence (especially in the middle east), a religion whose more than half of its scripture dedicated to hatred and killing of other people "infidels", a religion that honors terrorism and deem it the ultimate good that leads to heaven. Muslim people have become terrorists, not only because their religion tells them so, but also because the west have always had their hands in the middle east, undermining the stability of the region and the sovereignty of its countries under the guise of democracy and freedom, mostly to make sure the OIL stays under their control, and probably some other strategic purposes. As for the Palestinians, they not only had their share of foreign intrusions, they had their land taken. The movie was biased and one-sided, it was not entertaining, and the message it delivered was wrong. I feel sad to see such hatred from both sides, and even sadder that the rest of the world does almost nothing to stop the atrocities committed and endeavor for peace between the two sides, instead they take sides with the oppressors, it's a shame. We are all human beings, we all have 46 chromosomes in each cell of our bodies, we all laugh when we are happy and we all cry when we are sad ... but it seems that the silly differences between us that we human beings created by default will always tear us apart no matter how high our thinking become and in spite of all the biological evolution breakthroughs that eventually led to our existence, we are higher animals, yet interestingly we are the only species on this planet where members kill or mutilate each other, simply for joy !what a doomed review, neither of the two sides are gonna like it, I bet not even the moderate and open minded of them, but then again, who cares... nobody likes the sordid truth? ... sooo what?

The movie is decent. It's not terrible, but it certainly isn't amazing, either. I don't think it's beautiful, and I don't think it's deep. I might, however, be biased, as Bram Stoker's "Dracula" is my favourite book.*SPOILERS AHEAD* My main problem with the movie is that it utterly butchers the character of Mina Harker. It sacrifices the relationship between her and Lucy for the relationship between Mina and the Count - a relationship that in fact never existed on the pages of Stoker's novel.Mina's best friend is Lucy. Dracula kills Lucy. So WHY does Mina love Dracula? Why did Coppola feel the need to take the route of forbidden love between the Count and Mina when the love between Mina and Jonathan was already quite obvious in the novel? Another thing that greatly annoys me is the excessive amount of topless women in the movie. I don't care what anyone says - nothing can make a blood transfusion sexy, not even a topless Lucy.Aside from that, Coppola did manage to stay somewhat true to the book. But his movie still falls short. I have to wonder if I'll ever see the day that someone decides that it IS okay to do Stoker's novel the justice it deserves.

Critics may carp, but I was astounded by this movie; it has fabulously exciting direction by Michael Bey, including the most astonishing car chase ever, and a weirdly brilliant shoot-out inside a house. But what impressed me most is how the movie changes tone so much - one moment it's a high comedy, then a touching buddy movie, then a violent crime caper with truly vile Miami drugs lords, then a farce which goes right to the limits of bad taste, then a fully-fledged commando action flick...it never draws breath. In theory it should have been all over the place but the whole thing somehow hangs together brilliantly. It's also laugh out loud funny a great deal of the time (Will Smith/Martin Lawrence superb). I think it's radical. You have to hand it to Bruckheimer, this kind of thing is much harder to do than it looks.

I watched the "Unexpected Journey" some time ago and got around seeing this one for free. After seeing the first of the Hobbit films I didn't expect much, the goofy Disney feeling I got from the first movie continued deep into this one. What I liked about this movie was Smaug, he is an interesting character with a lovely voice actor. I'd love to see some deeper information about each and every one of the dwarfs as someone who didn't read the books have zero clues about who they are besides the little info given occasionally throughout the movie + the scene at Bilbo's home in the first flick. Tons of "Pirates of the Caribbean"-styled goofs, few noteworthy scenes, flashing camera angles and an out of the air-love story between the filler character Tauriel and one of the dwarfs.I have no clue as how to this movie managed to achieve this kind of IMDb score.

Anyone who has seen this film and thought that it lacked in interest and appeal must live a life of complete adventure. This film is for all those people who have yearned to break away from the ordinary, same old same old, day to day routine. I saw so much of myself in this film (like probably many other people) and it kept me glued to the screen to possibly give me an answer to my own hum-drum life. I was drawn to the utter bleakness of Joe's life. An unforgiven boss, an eye sore of a work place,and the knowledge of his own demise compels Joe to take chances, speak his mind, and quit his job...sounds like what we all would want to do. This film was so wonderfully done and Tom Hanks really brought out the person we all wish we could be. It may not be an Oscar winner but it has all the elements that the every day Joe (no pun intended) needs to enjoy a great film.

This movie could not be easy to do. The first one had a nearly magical touch and the perfect level of humour, mythology and chemistry between the main characters. In a way it was like a music piece and every tone was matched perfectly. The second one is not like that at all. The one thing it had going for it was a better enemy but the rest was just squandered in vey childish one liners and complete last of the first movies chemistry between the characters. The story is nearly non existent in this movie but that was the case in the first one aswell. But it didnt matter in the first movie cause all the other elements worked so well. In this movie the humour is not good at all, the first scene when groot dances feels like a disney movie and its to obvious and predictible. Even the mythology looses its appeal in this over the top humour. It feels like the movie just want to land one liners all the time. It feels forced and its not funny and it messes up the story and even the mythology. The good thing from this movie is Ego and Mantis. The main characters though are sometimes painfull to watch. Its kind of sad to see funny and kind of intersting characters get reduced to a parody of themselves.

This movie blew my mind as a kid, and rewatching it last night showed me that whilst it didn't stand up to that first watching, Spike Lee's film is still an enthralling, near-perfect bank heist even if its external subplot is a bit less fun.We open on Clive Owen, sitting in what appears to be a prison cell. The beauty of Inside Man is that often we see things that mean little to us until their meaning is revealed to us later on. Owen and his smooth, deliberate and calm delivery hook us into the film before we even begin. I'm a big sucker for "listen carefully" monologues, and Owen's might be one of the best.The opening montage is a clash between gorgeous cinematography and grating music - for some reason, Spike Lee wanted to incorporate Slumdog Millionaire music before it was cool. Then we kick straight off - Owen and co storm a bank, take everyone hostage and set to work. Much of the film is seen through the eyes of Detective Frazier (Denzel Washington), the lead hostage negotiator who handles the situation on the ground. Matthew Libatique's cinematography is one of the film's highlights. He uses Steadycam to show us that Owen is firmly in control, while Denzel scenes are filmed with hand-held cam to indicate confusion. The initial hostage scenes are genuinely frightening thanks to Owen's commanding performance (even behind a mask and sunglasses) and the almost too smooth tracking shots reminiscent of Full Metal Jacket's opening scene. There are almost no noticeable cuts during these bank tracking shots and they create an incredible aura of tension when we realise how close the robbers are in proximity to the hostages at all times. Flash forward scenes, during which Denzel and Chiwetel try to pick the hostages from the robbers, are bleached to show us the different time periods. Barry Alexander Brown does an impeccable job editing the film together from all of Libatique's cameras.Denzel Washington was an inspired choice for Frazier, a charming, calm and collected negotiator with whom breaking eye contact is impossible. The scenes during which he and Clive Owen talk are woefully too few, as both men are exceptional. Chiwetel Ejiofor is a solid partner for Denzel Washington (far better utilised than he was in American Gangster) and Willem Dafoe is solid as the lead uniform on the ground. The film also has a very meaningful subplot about the bank's founder (Christopher Plummer) and his hired "fixer" (Jodie Foster - exceptional as a calm woman who never looks down on anyone but nevertheless knows she is superior) trying to protect interests within the bank. All scenes involving the robbery itself are exceptional with few flaws. Many of the film's extras are excruciating - loud caricatures like "New York woman" and "Jewish man" - and some of the writing really ruins the scene (an old woman screeches for the robbers to "go ahead, make my day"). The story is the film's greatest asset, but a fair bit of dialogue is poor. The best scenes are the ones owned by Denzel, who Lee instructed to improvise. Once the robbery comes to an end, the story stays overlong as Denzel plays politics with Foster and searches for the truth. Its never explained how Owen knew where his sought bounty was or even that it was in the bank - the identities of his accomplices tend to go over our heads given that we cannot pick them from the film's extended cast. And the film's final scene literally feels like it is leaning into a porno, with bow-chicka music and Denzel's annoying girlfriend on the bed moaning about handcuffs. However, Inside Man is a directorial achievement, featuring a cast of magnificent smooth- tongued actors and one of the best thought out crimes ever put to film.

Night at the Museum is directed by Shaun Levy and jointly written by Robert Ben Garant & Thomas Lennon who adapt from the book by Milan Trenc. It stars Ben Stiller, Carla Gugino, Dick Van Dyke, Mickey Rooney, Bill Cobbs, Ricky Gervais, Robin Williams, Owen Wilson and Steve Coogan. Plot sees Stiller as a newly recruited night security guard at the Museum of Natural History, who discovers that an ancient curse causes the animals and exhibits on display to come to life and wreak havoc. Not really one night at the museum, but three nights, it's a film that's enjoyable enough if expectation is set at the level for standard family action/comedy fare. All the elements for such are within, protagonist with something to prove to his son, magical animals and historical characters coming to life; and of course the general malarkey that comes with such a premise. Trouble is is that the premise is stronger than the execution. Sure it's energetic and Stiller makes for a likable loser-cum-hero type, and the effects will no doubt dazzle the kids, but it comes over as an excuse for the latter. Is it fun? Yes, yes it is, when it's in flow, but it does grow tiresome towards the run in and the pay off is as formulaic as it gets. It garnered enough coin to warrant a sequel, something that firms up the belief that the market for action/adventure/family movies is currently starved of portions.It's hoped that better directors, and better films, are forthcoming in this genre, so as to show the latest generation of fun seekers that efforts such as this are not high points. 6/10

I can't see how anyone over the age of twelve could find anything even remotely amusing in this movie. It is totally formulaic, cliché-ridden tosh. How the producers managed to get such a high-powered cast is beyond me. What were Ben Stiller and Robin Williams thinking? Did they read the script before they signed on? The effects are okay, but there's nothing ground-breaking. (It's no improvement on that other - and far superior - Robin Williams 'animal' movie, Jumanji.) The actors do their job well enough, but this was not a good career move for anyone involved. Ricky Gervaise and Steve Coogan, particularly, are completely wasted.

Since this is easily one of the best detective/drama movies out there. Jack Nicholson gives an outstanding performance as 'Jake' Gittes, a Private Investigator with an obvious (but not entirely revealed) troubled past. Faye Dunaway is great as the femme fatale with a very disturbing past. When it is revealed towards the climax it comes as a huge shock. Although the plot can be kind of confusing at times it is still very interesting and it fits nicely together at the end. And boy, what an ending, so incredibly depressing. There are no real tragic moments throughout the movie until the end hits youlike a speeding bullet. Roman Polanski's directions is as usual, flawless. He creates an amazing atmosphere which complements the film's twisted story.This is easily one of the greatest, most intriguing film noirs ever made.5/5.

I was going to rate Gone Girl with an eight but the five last minutes made me change my mind because I really thought the ending was disappointing. But the rest of the movie itself is really entertaining. Maybe a bit too long but still entertaining enough to keep you interested. Crime/mysteries are one of my favorite genre of movies, especially when you can't really figure out what happened until the end. With this one I figured it out really soon but it was still enjoyable to watch due to the good performances of Ben Affleck and Rosamund Pike. Well, the whole cast was good actually except Neil Patrick Harris. I don't know why but I don't find him a good actor and he's quite irritable to watch. Nevertheless Gone Girl is a good movie with a couple of twists and the right amount of suspense in the story to have a good night in front of the big screen.

I think people are upset because they don't understand, so they try to downplay how good this movie is. Are their flaws, of course there are... the entire sequence with Morpheus' empowerment speech & that ludicrously long "jungle" dance scene, as well as Trinity & Neo's love scene... all of that could have been left out.But most of the movie is just right. If you cant except the premise of the movie, THE MATRIX IS A SIMULATION. SO THEY PRETTY MUCH CAN DO WHAT EVER THEY WANT. Then why watch the movie. Go see The Pianist or something else. The Matrix movies are for people like me. I am tired of thoughtless action movies with no plot, so they are essentially life action film of someone else's video game highlights (i.e. Mission Impossible 2, & Blade 2) & I'm tired of well acted drama's that are so boring you need no dose & jolt cola to make it thru to find out the final resolution (i.e. insomnia.. decent movie, but watch when you just get out of bed after 9 hours of sleep & have had 2 espresso's.) The Matrix Reloaded has an interesting premise, great action, decent acting by everyone except, Keanu. (he is duller than back side of a plastic knife, Keanu. Do us all a favor. WAKE UP! SHOW SOME ENTHUSIASM. You're getting $15 million a film...) Now for some interesting tidbits ***SPOILERS*** Check out the video game "Enter the Matrix' it helps explain some things & also shows some scenes that could have been in the movie, but instead were made for the game. The fight scene between Ballard (Roy Jones Jr.) & Seraph (the Oracle's protector) is very cool. Also, the way they explain why the Oracle is a different person now actually took some thought & was cleverly done. I don't know if that will be explained in the next movie, but it is in the game. Also you learn that all the things that the Oracle mentioned to Neo are in the movie: Ghosts (the twins obviously); vampires (Persephone); & werewolves (the 2 guys in the room watching horror movies. Persephone shoots one of them, comments about silver bullets, and then tells the other to go tell her husband.) The Wachowski brothers put a lot of thought into these movies & everything they have spawned. And it shows! They deserve a lot of credit for changing the industry & how action movies are made, besides setting the new benchmark. Think about how many action movies use bullet time now.One comment said most people probably didn't understand the intriguing conversation between Neo & the Architect. Maybe that's true. Most of the people I know thought he was a human. But that, in it self is a measuring stick of how good a movie is. People can discuss the different odds & ends of the movie at length because there is so much to think about. So please, if you haven't seen this, go check it out. If you have… Give credit where credit is due!

I have seen more interesting Independent Serbian Silent Films than this piece of artsy-farts garbage. I actually jumped ahead to the spoiler so I do not have to agonize through 139 minutes of this hell.They need to call this "The Tree of Taking My Life" because 30 minutes of this movie has brought me to that point. I saw that Heath Ledger was supposed to play a leading role in this movie. I guess we know what action he took to not have to be affiliated with this cinema-graphic nightmare.There is no need to add all of these shots of volcano's, outer-space, veins and stock footage from "Land of the Lost." These scenes do not make this film seem "smarter" or "more creative." All they do is make me want to get up and put my laundry in the dryer.I am glad this was a freebie from Redbox.Other than that, this is a great movie.

Its been while that this movie is out. There are many better movies made in the Indian film industry which have a far better script and a story line than this movie. I was quite surprised to see this movie of IMDb 250 list, doesn't deserve it at all. Probably a movie like Lagaan or Jodha Akbar might have been a better choice over 3 Idiots which basically is for the younger generation and like most of the movies delivers a common message. I am not quite sure how it got 8.1..The most ridiculous part was the delivery of a baby using a vacuum cleaner, common people who are watching not dumb, can they point out a single instance. That scene almost ruined the movie. Overall, it is just an outright commercial movie for the youth and the masses, nothing fantastic.

Unfortunately I have to argue that it doesn't deserve all the attention. Now I LOVE the Watchmen comic book. It is a piece of literature that should be treasured like most classics.Honestly, going into it I thought this movie would result in one of two ends. Train Wreck or Eternal Glory. The Outcome. This movie is a train whose journey to eternal glory was cut short due to a lack of key locomotive parts. But not a wreck.Seeing the story play out on screen was exciting and frustrating. Witnessing all the missing elements of the book was too much distraction, keeping me away from feeling fulfilled. Others in my group, new to the story, felt it was confusing. Not having enough emphasis on transitions between past and present. Though it does have some stunning visuals, and wild (although unnecessarily brutal) action that OD'ed on slo-mo. Personally, this movie seems like an audience pleaser. Like they took the most stirring, emotional comic book tale and numbed it down enough to give people something to clap at. This is evident when (readers of the book will notice) the stories biggest events unfold with little emotional response. Like they were glossed over. Or witnessed from the window of a passing train. Shame. Could have been Great.2 Things HAVE to be said. The make-up and music are the WORST in cinematic history! The music is just inappropriate and awkward for the moments they are attached to. Surgically removing your connection to the film every time a tune strikes up. But the make-up. My God the awful make-up. So many people giggled at the ridiculous faces of Richard Nixon and the elder Silk Spectre. Almost as many as those giggling at Dr. Manhattan's glowing blue... well you'll see. Everybody will see it no matter what the movie deserves. You can't fight the inevitable hype. Right now People are too excited, and they WANT this movie to be good so much they won't invest any stock in the bad reviews. Otherwise we wouldn't ever have to suffer through a Transformers 2.I once thought Alan Moore was crazy for not wanting anyone to interpret his work into movie form. I saw From Hell, thought nothing of it. Saw the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and thought, "Yea, they should leave his stuff alone." Then V for Vendetta and I switched sides, "Maybe it can be done." Now with Watchmen, just respect the mans wishes and don't mess up his stuff. Its too intricate, and too precise for it to be diluted with someone else's interpretation.

This movie is a real no-brainer, but if that's what you're looking for then this baby is right up your alley. Adam Sandler specialises in this type of film, switch off the cerebellum and just revel in the stupidity. The Waterboy is not going to win any awards or even make its audience think, but it will inspire some laughs if you let it. As for it being similar to Happy Gilmour, you might as well say that it is identical to half of the movies produced in Hollywood - unlikely hero comes good, gets faced with a difficult challenge, overcomes it an wins the game in the last few minutes! Sheesh, what movie doesn't use this formula nowadays? In short, don't expect too much from the film and you won't be disappointed. My vote 6/10

As practically everyone else in the Universe did, I had eagerly anticipated the return of the Star Wars Saga. It was a long sixteen years between Return of the Jedi and Phantom Menace, and for most of those years it actually seemed as if George Lucas would never get back to his epic space opera. During that time though, I did believe that if and when Lucas decided to give it another go, that he should change his mind about Episodes I - III, and perhaps give us Episodes VII - IX, with a new story line and new characters. The problem with prequels is and always has been, that no matter how you tell the story, you know how it will turn out in the end. It is this fact that usually makes prequels box office poison. I did know that if any writer, director, producer, could pull it off successfully it would be George Lucas. Did he succeed? In Episode One it appears that he did.As in all the Star Wars movies, we are quickly thrust into the storyline. There is not much time to linger on character development in the opening, as Lucas has always strided to grab the audience's attention as soon as the famous Star Wars scroll rolls off the screen. We are immediately introduced to a young Obi-Wan Kenobi and Qui-Gon Jinn, played by Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson respectively, who are on the planet Naboo where the evil Trade Federation is plotting a takeover. From the outset, both characters, Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon, fit their parts well, and have good chemistry together. Later we meet Queen Amidala, ruler of Naboo, intriquingly played by Natalie Portman, who is to be one of the central characters through out the first three episodes. With Amidala pretending to be one of her servants, and Jar Jar Binks whom they also met on Naboo, along with old friend R2D2 they end up on Tatooine, where we meet a very young Anakin Skywalker, played well by Jake Lloyd who is living as a slave with his mother Shmi, wonderfully underplayed by Pernilla August. (I suppose just because your civilization is advanced technically, doesn't mean you you're advanced culturally). It is here, in the now famous pod race, that this film technically shines. It is undoubtedly one of the most visually entertaining and brilliant race sequences put on film. There are other great moments of technical brilliance such as the underwater city of Naboo and the battle for Naboo. We also meet many other important characters, such as Senator Palpatine, played by Ian McDiarmind, Ray Parker menacingly effective as Darth Maul, and Samuel L. Jackson as Mace Widu in a small part that promises to expand as the saga continues. We are also reintroduced to Yoda and briefly to C3PO, even a brief appearance by Jabba the Hut. They are here to give a continuing link to all the episodes.So in the end, how does this all stack up. In total it does quite well. There are enough hints at surprises, things we may not have known before, that will keep the saga interesting and entertaining despite knowing it's final outcome. Liam Neeson was excellent, and I really liked his relationship with the young Obi-Wan. The young Anakin Skywalker is very sympathetic, so much so that it is hard to see him as the future Darth Vader. His mother, Shmi, is portrayed tragically, not only living as a slave, but having to send her son off to become a Jedi, perhaps to never see him again. Natalie Portman brings the right mix of understanding, yet firmness to her role as Queen Amidala, being defiant when she has to be, giving us just a glimpse of what Princess Leia perhaps inherited. Whether this is intentional or unintentional, it works. As for poor Jar Jar, who took such a beating in the press, really folks, he isn't that bad!As for the story itself, George Lucas gives us a lot of promises here, and we can only hope they are promises kept. He has taken a good step one at giving us a new, exciting, interesting trilogy.Next Class please.

A few points: 1. The fantastic visual effects we see occupy the film for the briefest of moments. They don't really factor into the story AT ALL, other than just as a reminder that indeed, this story takes place in the future. As one other person pointed out, the ENTIRE film takes place at night, and if it's technically daytime out, then every scene is suddenly indoors. You just never see the light of day. The initial title sequence and score is GREAT, but it's like it's all meant for some other storyline/film.2. What kind of future is this? Outside of a few gadgets like the Void-Kampf machine (which might as well be a polygraph), and perhaps the darkening technology that we see in Mr. Tyrell's penthouse, the only other examples of advanced technology are the spinner cars, Deckard's gun (maybe), and the replicants themselves...which as far as I can tell and the movie relates, aren't really androids, but rather, test-tube humans grown in a lab with bioengineered short lifespans. Not exactly advanced robotics. Other than their physical strength (which seems misused as none of them seem to know anything about fighting, even Roy, and their strength really just doesn't feature in the story much other than them beating up on Deckard a few times), they might as well BE humans. Honestly the plot makes more sense if they weren't replicants in the robotic sense, but the bioengineered test-tube humans I've suggested. This is all the more apparent by Roy's discussion with Tyrell over extended his lifespan, when all that they discuss are cell structures and virus chain molecules, etc, etc...clearly suggesting that the 'replicants' are simply test-tube humans. Another thing I didn't get is the fact that the replicants bleed like any other human when injured, so again, not exactly robots. And, why does a combat-model replicant experience extreme pain when driving a nail into his hand, but not when he gets hit in the head with a crowbar, or when he drives his head through a wall? It's like the story only fits whatever it's trying to accomplish per scene.....Continuing on with the 'future' thing, Why is virtually everything so utterly retro? Contemporary technology (ceiling fans, TV sets, radios, late model cars, etc) can be seen all throughout the film, giving you the idea that this 'future' is really just an alternate reality set in current day (for 1982). No attempts are really made to depict giant viewscreens, small devices that were if anything, predicted even in the 80's... Other than the brief visual FX we see (point#1), they should well have just set this story in today's world. There's really no reason anything that we see in the movie couldn't well have taken place today. The film completely wastes its futuristic setting.3. The suggestions that Deckard is a replicant are stupid. The movie goes out of its way to depict Roy and Rachael's persons as the pinnacle of replicant technology, but Deckard is just as weak as any other human. The question has to be asked WHY would you even create a replicant as frail as a normal human if indeed his job was to hunt other replicants who can hand him his own arse in a fight? It would make more sense that ROY was a Blade Runner. Additionally, if anyone is going to know what Deckard is, it's Tyrell, and yet he interacts with Deckard in a standard way, and even the other replicants treat Deckard as they would a human. I also didn't observe anything Deckard's character does in the film as 'good', in that he displays no apparent skills at tracking down replicants that any other cop wouldn't have. His chief calls him in out of semi-retirement saying he wants the old magic, but other than getting himself beat up half the time and being super-lucky the other, I don't get it.4. It seems kinda stupid that if these replicants are prone to escaping (indeed, they have cops specifically tasked with tracking them down), then it would make sense maybe to have some sort of remote control switchoff device or something? It's like, hey, this is the far future where mankind is apparently out exploring other planets outside our solar system, but we can't keep a handle on the numbered and created replicants? If they're gonna design them with limited lifespans, why not a kill switch or something else? Ack, makes no sense.5. About the only thing that makes any real sense in this story is Rachael discovering that she's not actually human. They could have done something with that. Perhaps make an entire story centered around her character learning this tidbit, then her trying to extend her life after going through all the emotional trauma, and then being hunted down by a blade runner. It would accomplish everything this movie was trying to tell, but failed at.6. Indeed, there's really no explanation why the replicants themselves are so utterly violent and psychopathic. This isn't in their programming. Leon is an ammunition loader programmed to take orders and designed for his strength, Pris is a pleasure model. Only Roy and Zora are combat oriented, yet as such, they would likely be level-headed and cautious. It's kinda odd that all of them so easily transcend their 'programming' and pretty much go around killing everyone they encounter. Instead of killing Tyrell, the best outcome I could have seen for Roy upon learning that he can't extend his life is to maybe just enjoy his remaining days, or the scene end with him sobbing uncontrollably like a child, and maybe for Tyrell to take pity on him and turn him off some other way, or maybe to show him that via other models, Roy's memories might live on in a way. Something...jeez.

..."Zodiac" nonetheless serves as an interesting examination of the effects of obsession on individuals, most particularly upon the man from whose book James "Spider-Man 4" Vanderbilt's screenplay was adapted. That man, Robert Graysmith, a newspaper cartoonist with a peripheral interest in the case (rubbing shoulders as he did with journalists directly involved), eventually became preoccupied with identifying the notorious "Zodiac killer," a California nutjob who killed seemingly at random and then tormented the populace with confessional braggadocio via letters to various newspapers, and to law enforcement officials as well.All in all, David "Alien 3" Fincher's decidedly unstylish film strikes me as a big-screen Movie of the Week, packing little of the emotional punch of "Se7en" or "Fight Club" or "Panic Room," his three most accomplished works to date. Whatever cat-and-mouse tension is generated in Act One while the killer is going about his dark business is soon dissipated when his rampage peters out and the story zeroes in on Graysmith's obsessive pursuit and its effect on his personal life. When Graysmith finally confronts his boogeyman, it comes as only mild satisfaction; the viewer is left wondering, "Okay, now what?" Unfortunately, that question is rendered moot; the man fingered by the film as the killer died before the law could bring him to justice.Still, "Zodiac" is quite watchable. The acting features competent portrayals by the likes of Jake "Brokeback Mountain" Gyllenhaal as the determined cartoonist/investigator, Robert "Chaplin" Downey, Jr. as a journalist laid low by the events, Mark "Just Like Heaven" Ruffalo as one of the lead police investigators stymied by the case, and John Carroll "Fargo" Lynch as a wonderfully creepy suspect in the case. Numerous other "name" actors fill out the cast, but "Zodiac" really isn't about the acting. In fact, in some ways, I found the profusion of identifiable faces to be somewhat distracting; the film may well have played better without them, ala "United 93." A perfect example would be Chloë "Trees Lounge" Sevigny as Graysmith's wife, a thankless role at best, and hardly one that stretched her acting chops one iota.Regardless, everyone acquits themselves well, and the production vales are top notch, including Harris "American Gangster" Savides' digital cinematography, Angus "Panic Room" Wall's careful editing, and composer David "Norma Rae" Shire's relatively unmanipulative score. The soundtrack of pop songs is evocative and appropriate without being too cutesy.Unfortunately, the sum of the parts is somehow less than the whole, and "Zodiac" offers little in the way of repeat viewability, which is why I can only give it a "7." Its attention to detail may be of interest to fans of crime procedurals, but even the intricacies of the journey cannot mask the disappointment of the arrival at journey's end.

Star Trek BeyondThe worst part of commercial space-travel is that lost luggage gravitates towards the sun.Thankfully, the crewmembers in this sci-fi film are only issued one outfit to wear.While on shore leave, Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) entertains an offer that would see him abdicate leadership of the USS Enterprise to Spock (Zachary Quinto).However, an SOS from deep space delays that decision, and lands Kirk and crew (Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin) in a trap set by an alien (Idris Elba) after an artifact capable of annihilating Starfleet.The third entry in the resuscitated franchise, Beyond is the most kinetic and action-packed of the trilogy. And though it introduces interesting new characters to the mix, this installment - like the ones before it - lacks the original series' social commentary.For example: In the future, women of all races will be free to wear miniskirts. Yellow Lightvidiotreviews.blogspot.ca

Sadly, I know this type of film isn't for everyone. Not everyone likes a film that challenges them to think in this manner, question what it is to be moral, what it is to be intelligent or what it is to be human, among many, many other things. All that without pounding one philosophy or another down your throat. No, Ex Machina allows you to decide these things for yourself if you wish to ponder them. I love my action filled comic book blockbuster summer adventures but honestly, Ex Machina is the type of film I wish would make a billion dollars in theaters. Many won't admit it when pressed or asked but the truth is most people don't like to think, don't like to question things. Most people are sheep just following the herd but if you're one of those sheep that likes to walk against the flow bumping into others as you forge your own path then Ex Machina is a must see film and one I'm sure, like me, you'll want to watch again just to spark even more thought. Most films given a perfect rating do not deserve it in the slightest but I can't find a single flaw in this film and due to the philosophical themes it will make repeat views enjoyable for many reasons. I have no choice and I happily give Ex Machina a perfect 5/5 score.For my full spoiler-free review visit my website Thy Demons Be Scribblin (thydemonsbescribblin.com)

I wouldn't want to be a ballerina. What I liked about this movie and what so many movies are lacking these days is it doesn't apologize for itself. A tragedy that keeps the audience guessing and hoping for some kindness, but delivers instead a visceral roller-coaster ride of complex emotions and garbled messages. I left the film feeling a little down. I would have liked to have seen a bit more closure at the end. Worth watching... ...dont know if I'd say it would have been better once it came out on DVD. Seems like a movie I would rather have watched someday in the comfort of my own home.... ...when Im having an especially bad day and have access to ice cream. Don't hate on that last statement, it was a good movie...

This is watchable trash, forgotten nearly as soon as it's finished.The cast all perform as well as can be expected for a horror film with virtually no dialogue.There are a few nice twists and a couple of surprises and there are dark and disturbing moments.The film is let down by the standard horror cliché of having creatures that are incredibly quick except when it is necessary for them to be defeated and who manage to appear everywhere and are impossible to hide from unless it is convenient for them not to do that! The characters are two-dimensional, no real dialogue so no surprise there, but there is the hint of a back story that is never used, a suggestion of the husband cheating but maybe this was cut to allow for a scene where they run screaming.It does have the feel of a Buffy flash back at points but it is harmless enough and easy to watch.

Too bad I cannot give this movie a 0. It is worth it!If you are a child or there is something wrong with your brain you will probably enjoy it: --> "To be honest, I am the target demographic here. I'm a guy in his twenties who plays video games and enjoys fantasy movies and action...."I honestly don't understand why some people like this movie!For me it was a waste of time. Thank you!(By submitting this review you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your review will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Reviews that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.)

Put succinctly, The Machinist isn't worth your time. You can see plenty of other creepy noir thrillers where the plot is about blocked memories (try 'Memento' or 'Fight Club', both much, much better). But why bother? The plot is more predictable than the writer would like you to think; judging from the documentary included in my DVD, he is just warming up to his subject matter, so let's not encourage him. But one critical reason to NOT see this film is to see Hollywood's new anorexia poster boy, Christian Bale, a man who truly takes Method Acting to a new low: 119 pounds. Thank God he has had a good run in 'Batman Begins', otherwise Bale would have this and 'American Psycho' to frame his career. What a shame. Good news: The photography is quite wonderful and the direction is good too. But a movie is more than pretty pictures and actors pacing their lines.

When hearing about the Scary Movie films I wasn't at first interested!But when I began to watch this one! Man it was funny! Especially with the Scream being parodied! The ghost face rap was epic! The scenes when Cindy gets a call from the killer & she sees his feet behind the settee! The news reporter speaking about the victim & then shooting the guy behind her! I know what you did last summer was parody well! The guy saying "it's alright I'm not dead" then he gets hit over the head after one of them throws a bottle in the commotion! Among other funny scenes like Ghostface getting high on weed was funny as! Overall a pretty good **** take of some of the horror films! 9/10

This is one of the worst movies ever made and I like a lot of the cast, just not here. This is such a horribly written movie that the screenwriters should half to sacrifice a pound of flesh. There is nothing to recommend it. All the moves are telegraphed, Adam Sandler has never been worse, which, for him, is saying a lot.This movie banked on the names. They should have put more money into the writers.I don't know why I have to write more to pan such bad movie, but that is what is required.

Big Fish takes you to that hidden place that only a select few only ever get to know or see. Bjork sang about it. Tim Burton recreates it. Take your shoes off and stay for awhile. Mcgregor/Finney is the Big Fish; He is the Christian soul winner who walks by faith and trusts God's word. His stories sound like fairy tales to his son because he has no faith in God or the Bible. Crudup plays the cynical unbeliever. "There is no way Jesus could have walked on water, it's just a made up story!" But you will soon learn that it is not. Amazing parables begin to reveal themselves if only you have argus eyes to see. Carter is Jezebel, the adultress. The fallen angel, Satan, is Buscemi. (He put his shoes back on). Jessica Lange is Eve (the naked woman in the water). Josephine (Cotelliard) I'm not so sure of yet..if you figure her out please let me know! This movie is really going to make God smile...and hopefully you too.

I loved the film. A rare case, when an entertainment film is so well-made, so moving...As for history - no matter how accurate or inaccurate it is historically, I don't see it as anti-English. Look at those treacherous Scottish noblemen! They are showed as far, far more disgusting people, than the English king etc.! I think it is not about "good Scots" vs. "bad Englishmen", but about people who are bleeding on the battlefield, fighting for their homes vs. people who just want more castles and personal power, than they already have. (English or Scottish, or anything else - no matter).

I usually like Danny Boyle films for content, subtext, and technical style, but I can't remember the last time that a supposedly "serious" movie relied on so many contrived plot coincidences to build and resolve suspense. This movie was exotic and pretty but unbelievable, empty and asinine.Please don't take seriously its depiction of beautiful, exotic 3rd world poverty. Instead this is a genre mash-up of the good brother/bad brother gangster movie with the Dickensian orphan rags-to-riches story. It does pretty well on those modest terms, but it's a colorful, violent fantasy, not a serious expose or a National Geographic documentary.The use of police torture to build suspense in the first act (not a spoiler - these are the opening sequences of the film); stylized violence against children; reliance on prettified poverty and the exotic "other"; the gratuitous resolution of the "bad" brother's story arc: you know what? If this movie had been made in the 70s it would have been set in Harlem and today we'd call it "blaxploitation." This movie is about on the level with "Shaft" and "Superfly." There's just something about setting it in India that has blinded certain white audiences to the fact that this is a pretty stupid movie.That said, Freida Pinto - and much of the movie - is stunningly beautiful to look at.

After seeing the movie I was so unimpressed I felt like writing an ironic review praising the fine acting and exquisite plot in this film. However, since it's currently in the IMDb top 250 and number one in the US box office, being a bit more serious seems like a better choice since I think the irony probably would be lost on most people.The Hangover is about four guys who go to Las Vegas to attend one of the guy's bachelor party. They have a wild night and wake up the next morning not being able to remember a single thing from the previous night. This setup could possibly make for a somewhat entertaining film, however they have failed on this one. Out of the running time I think I laughed about two times. It's a very excruciating thing to watch a film where even one joke falls flat, in this one which is supposed to be a comedy they turn into string combos of jokes that simply aren't funny.The humor is crude, sexist, violent, and still without going ever going over the line which is a problem. Comedies that go over the line, like Borat for example really is my cup of tea, but The Hangover never really dares to venture there. For example you are supposed to think the fat guy is funny because he is weird and stupid, although he comes off as too pathetic for it to be funny.The plot never draws you in since one does not feel anything for the main characters, they are all unlikeable in their own unique way. In movies it's important to have a logical thread going through the entire film, and not introduce too many random characters or events that are not motivated, especially not in the later half or so. In The Hangover way too many characters and situations are just randomly inserted which I suppose is meant to be goofy and hilarious, but it just comes off as bad scriptwriting.Worst of all though, and what really puts me off in The Hangover is the glorified picture of Las Vegas it produces, which unfortunately is very common in the mass media today. Las Vegas appears to be a paradise on Earth, where you come to have fun, win lots of money, and still leave with a smile on your face, no matter what happens. Because, what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. Well, let me tell you something: I've been to Las Vegas. Never in my life have I been to a more horrid place. I would never ever want to go there again. To me Las Vegas really embodies all the bad parts of the American culture. Nothing feels real there, it's all about surface and everything has this plastic, artificial feeling to it. Commerce is what it's all about there, spend money or lose it by gambling. None of this matters though, because most of the average joes watching this film will never go there, so film makers can continue to picture Las Vegas in this almost mythological way.

The British Film Industry is in the doldrums at the moment and I for one am fed up with my local cinema filled with rip offs of "Lock, Stock & 2 Smoking Barrels". So it came as welcome relief that this film came along. Chiefly what makes this film work for me is that it is a British Film made for a British Audience - too often the British are portrayed as upper class twits or raving psychos and it's refreshing to see something different. It actually tries to be authentic and doesn't alter the dialogue or accents to suit the international market. The film isn't original, but lets face it with the exception of " Being John Malkovich" very few film are nowadays. What drives it are a clutch of fantastic performances that make you believe in the characters & want them to succeed. Complaints have been made against using the miners strike of the 1980's as a backdrop, but that's all it is, a backdrop - it's used and in my opinion very effectively, to further illustrate the struggle & sacrifices that Billy & his family must make in order that he can fulfil his dream and as for it being used as a setting too many times - when? the only other film I that I can think of is "Brassed Off" In short, a brilliant film that the British can be proud of, a rare commodity these days - let's just hope Mike Leigh is filming something....

The trailers for this movie initially made me watch it, and I had high expectations to the movie, given the facts that it was Abrams and Spielberg who made the movie. And now that I have seen the movie I am left with a bit of a hollow sensation.Sure the movie was awesome in special effects and CGIs, nothing spared here, and it was an interesting thrill ride to watch. However, the story in itself was a tad too much of something that you have seen before. Think "The Goonies", "E.T." and "Battle Los Angeles", then you pretty much have the end result that is "Super 8". I am sure this movie can be watched by people of all ages, but I am left with a nagging sensation that it was perhaps intended for a younger audience.The story is about some kind of alien creature stranded on Earth, being experimented on by the American army, and all he wants to do is just to go home. Gee, haven't we seen this before? Say, in "Paul" to mention but a single movie. And of course someone wants to help the creature to go home. And a handful of young movie making teenagers are caught in the midst of the chaotic events, as is the peaceful town of Lilian. This is basically the story.What I didn't like about the movie was that a lot of it was shot during night or in really dark conditions, hiding most of the alien creature in most shots. I don't want to watch a movie like that, I prefer to see the details, not just given dark silhouettes and having to guess my way to the rest. So for me, this overall dark setting of the movie was dragging the enjoyment down quite a lot.The acting in the movie was good, both from the adult actors and actresses, as well as the young ones.I am sad to say that this movie is just yet another movie that lives high on CGI effects, dazzling and thralling us with its effects, such as movies like "Skyline" and "Monsters". It was lacking depth and a more solid foundation for its storyline. Everything here was just a remake of things seen before in other movies already.However, I am sure that "Super 8" will captivate and spellbind a large group of young viewers, in the same way that "E.T." did back in the day when I was a young kid. I was just hoping for a bit more...

The Shawshark Redemption is very good movie. This is a story that reflect prisons as seen by many prisoner. The Shawshark Redemption also reflect society problems. The plots and actors played very well that make me wanted to continue watch. They are very professional as a director and actor. they capture and identify with America male spirit as it shows in movie. The story is even more interesting seeing red and Andy building a relationship in a prison. Scenes are very good. Overall, this is a fantastic film.Comparing this kind of movie with other type of movie like comedy,I recommended every movie lover to watch this or you will be missing one of the best film.

I didn't like the original Meet the Parents, and I don't like Meet the Fockers. $250 million later, maybe it's me.I laughed out loud at this movie exactly 3 times, and they all occurred within the last 20 minutes of the movie. First, when Ben Stiller's character says "Yo soy tu papa" to his alleged son. Second, the illustration of the circle of trust which clearly indicates Greg is no longer part of said circle. Third, Owen Wilson singing in Hebrew. That's it.Nothing that DeNiro, Hoffman, or Streisand did in this film made me laugh. They have reached such one dimensional cartoon levels (is that redundant?), that the joke, which wasn't real funny to begin with, gets old very fast.We have 3 legendary actors, one of today's top comic performers, the underrated talents of Blythe Danner and Teri Polo, and the movie was terrible. Like I said, maybe it's me.

I've seen MY BIG FAT Greek WEDDING twice, so I am pretty sure about what I saw...yet for the life of me, it's overall rating is a relatively paltry 6.7 (as of 8/09). Considering how much money this film made and how well-crafted it was, this score just seems way too low---especially since this is the ultimate date film--there simply is no better.What I liked about the film in particular is that it has appeal to both men and women and this cannot be said of some "chick flicks". Sure, it has romance and kissing and the like, but it also is funny, warm and enjoyable on many levels. Heck, I could even see older kids enjoying the film--whether or not they are Greek.The film consists of a wonderful ensemble cast. While there are some famous actors in the film (such as John Constantine, Lanie Kazan and Andrea Martin), these are not necessarily household names and the rest of the cast are pretty much unknowns. This is NOT a problem, as it increases the believability of the film and these unknowns all proved they could really act--and have no reason to stay unknown for long.Considering that my review is coming years after the film was released and there are already a ton of other reviews, I won't bother to beat a dead horse and discuss the plot. The bottom line is that this is a brilliant film. On one hand, it all seems so simple and slight, but on the other the film really delivers in every possible way. So many funny and wonderful moments--be sure to have a few Kleenex when you watch this sweet film.

You need to watch this film with the right mindset. It's themes are kind of similar to Inception, but they've been delivered in a much better way and the film has a lot more to it. you wouldn't watch inception after a long day at work though.That being said it's hands down the best film I've seen in years - It feels a little bit like everything inception could have been (in terms of the philosophical questions raised and general screwing with your mind a bit), but wasn't as Inception was designed for a much wider audience. In a similar way, because of the strong philosophical themes it has been left intentionally open to interpretation to an extent. Personally, I find this is part of the charm of the film. If you're expecting an absolute ending that's tied up with a little bow you will be disappointed.It looks at the way choices can affect your life and follows Nemos thought process at different points of the film.

Charlie Chaplin was the Little Tramp. Kicked around and mistreated, he always retained his hope, his kindness and his jaunty walk. Adam Sandler has taken the comic little man persona in an entirely new direction -- he's the sniveling tough guy, the twitchy mama's boy, the whining bully.In this movie, Adam Sandler does pointless, stupid things, then reacts with screaming, Hitler-like tantrums whenever his own actions start to boomerang and hit him in the behind. The story line, of a small time salesman going over the edge, has been a cliché ever since Willy Loman's sanity gave way in Arthur Miller's DEATH OF A SALESMAN. But at least Willy was a full grown man with a wife and sons he tried to provide for. Adam Sandler seems to exist at the age of 13 forever, flying into a rage every time his sisters call him "gay boy." Who exactly is supposed to identify with this character? Emily Watson, refined and very beautiful, is hopelessly out of place in this strange, self-indulgent movie. Not that a romantic comedy featuring a classy lady and a two-bit jerk was a bad idea to start with. Perhaps if the Sandler character were forced to clean up his act, and learn something about himself, in order to become worthy of the stunning English beauty, the movie might have made sense. But no, all the guy does is go right on throwing temper tantrums left and right, screaming and frothing at the mouth, while the exquisite Emily Watson just stares at him in a daze. The movie ends with her blank confusion filling the screen, and perhaps that's the most appropriate image.

Everything, I mean everything that is good about this movie is in the trailer. Then end! Full stop! Well, there was the obligatory atmosphere and setting which I loved. The story and characters were there which I love. I love Johnny Depp and Helen Bonham Carter. I love Tim Burton and Danny Elfman. I **did not** love this movie. In short, it was so disappointing and purported to be much more than it was. Besides big names, and big advertising, it was a flop. I did like some twists in the movie where Dr. Hoffman uses Barnabus' blood to make herself a vampire instead of giving him transfusions to correct his "condition". However, I thought it silly that the daughter Carolyn was a werewolf which was suddenly and ridiculously sprung on us at the end of the movie. Do not expect anything and you will be much happier for it because you will be disappointed like my friends and me.

Dexter is by far one of the most creative television shows! The uniqueness of the show is what makes the audience fall in love with a serial killer. The story follows Dexter, a Miami Blood Spatter Analyst, who fights justice in his own way by killing murderers to quench his need to kill. Basically he's the killer of killers! Michael C Hall plays Dexter perfectly. Dexter's lack of emotion, satisfaction from killing, and fear of getting caught couldn't be portrayed any better. Along with Dexter Morgan, all the characters are well developed and have a well built sense of reality to them. Dexter's first season focused on Dexter Morgan and played around with his history and showed the audience how Dexter became the closet killer he is. Unlike many other shows Dexter did not lose its integrity during it's second season. This season humanized Dexter in a sense of becoming a family man and trying to feel the emotions he can't. Unfortunately Season Three took a bad turn. Having Miguel Prado in such a big role and basically becoming Dexter's Intern made the show seem like they got hit with a bad case of writer's block! Season Four is up and running and so far it looks like it's going to be the show to beat. John Lithgow's character "The Trinity Killer" is so mysterious and is played so well! This season's story line has so much potential. With the trinity killer's presence, Agent Lundy back in the picture, Maria and Angel's secret romance, as well as Rita and the kids, who knows how this tale will end!

Here is a Film that shows you how vicious, and how humane, humans can be. Andy and Red are 2 of the most honest and memorable characters ever made, next to Dr. Strangelove and Charles Kane. If u want to see real human drama at its peak, see the Shawshank Redemption at least 2 times.

This is one of my favorite movies of all time. Definitely in my Top 10. Sean Penn's performance is just magnificent in the way he captures us in every single scene he's in. Especially at the end when him and Kevin Bacon's character Sean are sitting on the curb of the street, his words and his acting practically gives me chills. Another wonderful but chilling part is at the end when Celeste Boyle (played by Marcia Gay Harden) is at the parade at the end of the movie, just the look in her eyes tells us the despair she is feeling. This is another A+ for Clint Eastwood, its beautifully directed, the writing is fabulous, and the acting is superb! Fav Quote: "We bury our sins here Dave, we wash them clean"

I've seen this about 7 times. What i liked was the disintegration of the relationship between Ace and Ginger. Although founded on shifting sand, it came as a shock to me when they were arguing at the restaurant, and Ace came out with - "Listen you f---g c--t!" That was the first time I had heard that combination of words used in a film, and was delivered with such venom that you knew right there there was no going back for them.And another scene i liked was when the sheriff held up a magazine, that had a story on Ace in it, and says -"Of course its true! Its right here!" pointing to the article....Blueberry muffins, an EQUAL amount of blueberries in each muffin! And the chefs exasperated reply -"Do you know how long thats going to take!" ha ha haAnd, a tip for life"be a man! and not a f---g pimp"Had a lot of laughs. I wonder if Bugsy had the way it all turned out, on his mind!

Panic Room is the first time we see a genuinely intellectually bereft David Fincher, but it won't be the last, and it probably is no coincidence that it exists hot on the heels of one of Fincher's least successful films, which ironically will become one of his most popular. Sandwiched between Fight Club and Zodiac, two of Fincher's best, if not his best, it has the feel of an exhausted director and a conflicted film maker who wants (needs) to invite a larger audience. In Panic Room, Fincher is still attracted to strong themes. The house is a transitional space for Meg (Jodi Foster) and Sarah (Kristen Stewart), over large and painted as a threatening space, just as Fincher did with The Game. In The Game the family home is a threat to Nicholas because it is the scene of his fathers suicide which laid a trajectory Nicholas inevitably follows. In Panic Room, the enormous house is a threat because Meg has left the safety of her marriage and is venturing out of the family home into a house she will need to defend with her androgynous daughter Sarah. Meg is in a feminist transition, Sarah is a new generation of self sufficient female. And yet, Fincher strangely keeps the force of his directorial presence at the surface, resting only on the house as impregnated fortress and the panic room as both a source of safety and vulnerability. Panic Room is a new set of problems for Fincher, different to what had with Alien³, which was the only film that could be counted as a failure prior to Panic Room being made - at least the only one Fincher really considered a failure. It could be that Fight Club just took too much out of him, because we don't see the surfacing here of a need for commercial appeal, but rather a failed attempt in the stylistic approach that leaves the film soulless.Panic Room comes out in 2002, right at the start of a new century and it becomes one of several films at the time to use video surveillance as a vehicle for a citizens big brother style of visual oppression over each other. The cameras are static, while Fincher's camera is the only entity that can move through the house with giant sweeping motions that imply an all-seeing eye. The fixed video surveillance is always seen through the presence of the character watching, and it immediately provokes reaction. It is only when Meg destroys the cameras that she is able to defeat the intruders, and provoke the comment "Why didn't we think of that". Yet none of this scope is portrayed with the substance that, for example, the Ikea catalog house is portrayed in Fight Club. Fincher is able to give the aesthetic sense of all of us living in an Ikea catalog in Fight Club, cross referencing the square cleanliness of the apartment and the office against the ruinous warmth of Tyler Durdens mansion. While Panic Room stands on its high themes, Fincher never properly establishes a connection between the human creatures who are both trapped and liberated by their video equipment. Meg is distrustful of the equipment immediately, from her claustrophobia (which bizarrely disappears) through to her struggling to program the electronics of the panic room, and subsequently not hooking up the phone line. We never get a sense of an immersion, a connection with the equipment, therefore we never get a sense of it betraying her, as we do with the Ikea houses. Fincher overlaps her "scared housewife" persona with an ineptitude that, although overcome toward the end in triumph, still keeps her at a distance from what could have been the most powerful theme of the film, if Fincher hadn't shied away from it. Think of Sex Lies and Videotape (made thirteen years earlier) and the way Soderbergh was able to establish a connection between the anxiety surrounding human interaction and the relief of distance created through the surveillance properties of video. Fincher is never able to convince us of a two-edged sword connection between the advantages Meg clearly has because she can see her intruders, and the problems this causes for her.This is especially highlighted in the first time Meg sees the panic room, and makes a reference to Edgar Allen Poe. This has some significance when later we realize the burglars want to infiltrate the house in order to get to the panic room which sits like a proclamation of what is to come, think of The Raven, but loses power when compared with The Tell Tale Heart, which is obviously the story being referenced. The old man's "evil eye" is the video surveillance, and the young man's murder represented in the relationship between Junior (Jarod Leto) and the old man who lived in the house previously (who built the Panic Room) as well as Meg's emerging feminist. Unlike the Tell Tale Heart, money is the motive, but the image of the vulture like all-seeing eye, coupled with Fincher's brilliant feel for paranoia, becomes a great idea so poorly represented that the garishness of the conspiracy thriller takes over, and flattens all plotting nuances except for the clichés we revive through the viewer. Much of this is the problem of an uncharacteristically ordinary script by David Koepp who brings poorly conceived, clichéd antagonists into the house. The value of the invaders is left to quality of performance, and Jared Leto is a horribly shrill, hysterical Junior, Dwight Yoakim is an unconvincing symbol of chaotic evil (that flails even too much for chaos) and only Forest Whitaker becomes an interesting foe, and that is mostly because he wisely downplays his heart-of-gold-victim-of- circumstance Burnham rescuing us from that hopeless cliché. Even Jodi Fosters great performance as Meg and Kristen Stewart's confidently portrayed Sarah can't save the film from its self-inflicted wounds.

" Its strange, isn't it? To think of oneself as an assassin?" One of my favorite movies from 05. The public massacre of Israeli athletes spurs Israel's relentless intelligence agent, Mossad, into action. While the world reels from seeing the '72 Olympics marred by murder, the agency orders Avner ( played masterfully by Eric Bana) to retaliate against the Palestinians responsible.Under the long-distance commander of government agent Ephraim ( Geoffrey Rush), five diverse operatives form an unconventional counter-terrorism team, in which they set out to track and kill their pray. As the men grow to realize they are enmeshed in a morally and politically complex story, they begin to question their roles.... only to find that no answers are there.Directed by Steven Spielberg, the film is a little too long, and I could see how a someone could simply turn it off...... but, for me- it feels very efficient, and absorbing. There were really only two scenes, I thought were ridiculous, the first one was the contrived meeting with the PLO terrorists in the same safe house and the second were the lame sex scenes, that I could have done without.But, for me: The film's most exciting moments are in the details of assassinations. The bomb at the hotel, with the newlyweds and the very own target right next door to Avner.... the first assassination, the Hitchcockian suspense surrounding the little girl answering the phone, when she is not supposed to be there, the commando night raid, the killing of the Dutch Assassin. However, my all time favorite scene of the film- takes place in the rain soaked London, where Avner and his team are trailing one of their targets, and they are assaulted by a bunch of Americans- who turn out to be CIA, protecting their 'asset.' Current 007 himself, Daniel Craig's performance as the most gung ho of the group, leaves you wondering what he's got in store for the Bond Franchise as well.

An amazing story that will make the viewer go through every human emotion possible; even more so by connecting through the boy's perspective of his journey through life as he knew it.Any words will all fall short to describe how worth this movie is. It will definitely change something inside of you, and make you remember a time in your life when everything was fascinating and meaningful, a beautiful lesson on the relativity of happiness, bravery and love of a mother wanting to stay sane through her struggles to help him never learn of the sad truth of their own experience and reality.Cinematic masterpiece, strong story and storytelling, powerful and rich. it will also raise awareness for terrible crimes that happen every day, but brings hope to the victims and their families.Watch the movie it's worth every second of your time.

I walked into the movie theater only because of my girlfriend, who wanted to see "something romantic". So i entered the half-empty hall full with skepticism, expecting both a waste of my time and money. I was later amazed by the incredible outstanding quality of this film, which made me think about what i have done with my life until that point, it made me realize how beautiful life can actually be, it made me understand, that it is up to you to fill your days with happiness and give them a point and a meaning. This definitely goes into my top 5. Excellent collaboration between the cast, the director, the producers and the screen-play writers.

As a one time reader of the Punisher: Warzone series and Punisher: Survival, I have to say I started the movie off slightly disappointed.This punisher, although defined, isn't nearly massive enough for the 'real' Frank Castle. I think this role was made for bodybuilder Mike Matarazzo, who would be absolutely perfect in it. But I digress.The second problem is that this Frank Castle is not nearly nuts enough. He was crazier than the original Rambo (First Blood), who was pretty unstable himself.Third, the details were off. In The Punisher, Frank's little nuclear family was killed in Central Park, not at some extended family get together in Puerto Rico.I also thought that Thomas Jane didn't have the intensity or gravitas for the role. I like Rebecca Romijn Stamos.The minor characters were put in to supply comic relief. I don't think comic relief was needed, if the directors had taken a darker, more Gothic approach to the story. I would have liked to see more of Frank's mental instability. More Se7en meets Batman.I thought it was interesting to see Will Patton outside of his bookish, intellectual performance on "The Agency".

Cutting to the chase, I don't see the entertainment value in this film, I have watched the first 15-20 minutes or so, and skipped along the length to see if anything interesting popped up.The story is boring, I don't really care about the main actor, thought ''what the hell'' when I saw him ''flying''. Perhaps I'm not sophisticated enough to appreciate the ''artistic'' value, but to me, a film that doesn't offer anything remotely interesting in the first 20 minutes isn't worth watching.Where is the comedy in this film like the genre says ?Unlike films like ''Boyhood'', which I can relate to and found generally interesting. But this film is just dull to me.

Well, incomprehensible as in "Why did this get made?" or "How the heck could they make it this bad?" or "Did they think they could get away with that?"Arnold's accent is thicker than ever, somehow. He spends twenty minutes being hauled around like a sack of meat from a helicopter in a major "action" scene, and falls victim to the dumbest of movie blunders: he defeats evil through LOVE!Byrne is really awful, but he has nothing to work with. Evil given form is apparently a slightly horny, smirking man who wisecracks and leers. He spends the film killing his henchmen (I'm so sick of villains doing that) and random people he bumps into by use of buses and magic dynamite. How boring is that? Satan is given a human body and he behaves like a teenager who's read the Anarchist's Cookbook too many times. Ahnold is NOT back. He is a dinosaur of the past and will be replaced by younger, comprehensible actors who do some of their own stunts and can read a proper line to save their life.

"Easy A" earns an A as an excellent movie. This sophisticated comedy celebrates liberal causes and embraces diversity. Olive Penderghast (Emma Stone) gets in trouble when she tells her best friend Rhiannon that she spent a weekend with a college guy. Mind you, Olive had no date and spent the entire weekend in her room with her dog as her only companion, and played the song "I've Got A Pocket of Sunshine." Later, at school, Rhiannon refuses to believe that her oldest friend didn't have sex with a college guy. Reluctantly, our heroine breaks down under pressure and admits that she did have sex. A bubble-headed Christian fanatic, Marianne, occupies a stall when Olive makes her confession to Rhiannon. Later, Olive helps a homosexual guy out at her high school who is being bullied by the straight guys. She takes Brandon (Dan Byrd) to Melody Bostic's party and they fake like they are having incredible sex. Afterward, Brandon has nothing to worry about because all the guys treat him now as one of them. Olive attracts scandal and acquires a sordid reputation. Eventually, word leaks out in certain quarters that Olive and Brandon didn't have sex and others bribe Olive so say they have had sex with her. Meantime, Marianne, does her best to derail all of Olive's plans and launches a smear campaign against her. Marianne emerges as the chief villainous in "Easy A." Olive gets in trouble with the school principal when she calls one of Marianne's minions Nina (Mahaley Manning) a "twat." Olive is blessed with two of the most liberal parents in the world and they have adopted an African-American child. "Easy A" qualifies as refresh, funny, and fast-moving. Emma Stone is sensational!

Well - I don't like time-travel-movies much because most of the time imo the writers screw the story up. But the high-ratings and the fine actors involved dared me to give the movie a try - and ofc it failed... Far too many holes to the plot (e.g. if the gangsters in the future got a time-travel machine there is no need for loopers at all, just think about it.) Also the movie didn't hold my attention well - too much dialogue for my taste which lead into the kingdom of sleepiness. The implementation of the mutant kid didn't make the story better at all. Another aspect are all the action scenes - uninspired and at best mediocre stuff. Summa summarum: imo one of the few good time-travel-movies is the original movie Time Machine of George Pal from 1960 with Rod Taylor in lead. If a director or writer wants to rise chances for making a bad movie - he/she makes one about time-travel.

I watched this show from the beginning. It is not particularly great show if you verify special effects, but it is very involving show - there is interesting and witty script (at least for 8 seasons), the chemistry and some kind honesty between two main characters. I liked very much first 8 seasons, but pity - 9th season wasn't that interesting, and in 10th season Supernatural became family drama with a small glimpse of adventures. Castiels daughter issues, Crowleys mother? No no no... give me back ghosts, werewolves, vampires, give me back king of hell and not the "lost boy, who didn't get love from his mommy", give me back two brothers against evil - "You know, saving people, hunting things. The family business."

Well,i went to see cw with high expectations.i was expecting more than flashy fight scenes but all in all,thats the only good thing about this movie.way too much cheesy dialogue that takes away the intensity of the action.if you're a casual movie goer,this movie may be somewhat enjoyable.but comic book fans beware,they butcher one of the most iconic story arcs in marvel.batman v superman was a couple steps up in many areas.civil war had absolutely no moment that made you use your brain.its mainly just mindless action with dialogue as filler.which is an extreme disappointment.it will no doubt do well,simply because it attracts such a young audience.

I gave this movie 1 because that is the lowest grade available - it is clearly much worse. I had read the reviews and assumed that they must be over-exaggerating how bad this film was - I was wrong.Under no circumstances be tempted to watch this film.

American Pie was undoubtedly a huge success financially. It gave hope to the struggling teen comedy genre and for the past two years we've had to endure rip-offs even worse than this. The movie feels as fake and tasteless as a Mcdonald's pie, with almost no genuine comedic moments. Worst yet, near the end we get a moment where our hero, Jim says he's sick of talking about sex and isn't so excited to have it anymore, while the supporting characters nod their heads in agreement. The moral about taking time to have sex is particularly pretentious in a movie like this, and is even more undermined by the fact that they all have sex in the last 15 minutes. Jason Biggs, as we have seen recent films can barely carry a film without humping a pie, and his career is already burning out. Unfortunately, American Pie 2 will be released this week, which is sure to make a lot of money. American Pie not only stands as a vastly overrated movie, but one of the worst to ever inspire a sequel.

When I first saw the trailer for Real Steel I scoff at it, thinking it looked like a big budget, cliché ridden film and that Hugh Jackman needed a better agent. It had been jokily been called the Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots the movie, but it turns out that Real Steel is an entertaining film for the whole family.In the near future robot boxing has replaced human boxing because people wanted the carnage without the bloodshed. Charlie Kenton (Jackman) was a boxer who was forced to turn to a robot operator. He is constantly in debt, always on the road to fight underground, avoiding debt collectors and has to make deals to find new robots. At a rodeo in Texas he is told his ex-girlfriend has died and he is the next-of-kin to his son Max (Dakota Goyo). Charlie is willing to get Max's aunt (Hope Davis) care for him, for $100,000, but only if he takes care of the child when they she is on her second honeymoon with her husband (James Rebhorn). The aunt is not aware of this deal. Over the summer Max finds a old sparing robot Atom, and over the course of the film improve it. Atom some raises up the underground scene to the point he can challenge the best robots in the professional league.Real Steel is a sports film, a sci-fi story and most importantly a father-son story. Charlie starts as a real jackass, avoiding his creditors and willing to sell his son for a quick buck. Of course Max is not thrilled finding this out but slowly they bound and as characters they grow. They story is the main element of this film and Jackman and Goyo were good performers together. The boxing was also really well handled: Shawn Levy was able to mix animatronics and CGI seemingly as knocking seven bells out of each other. There is excellent camera work, editing, special effects and a soughing score by Danny Elfman. Levy was able to make the human drama compelling and deliver on the robot action, making all the robots look different and have different styles and moves. He would be a much better choice to direct a real Transformers reboot.The acting was solid throughout. No one was Oscar worthy but they did good job particularly Jackman as his character does change and grow. Some people have said that Goyo was annoying but I thought he did a good job and shows a lot of promise. I think that it is more the writing behind the character and I think there are some just reasons behind that, he just lost his mother and dumped with a father he does not know or cared about him. Even though this is a paycheque film for most of the actors they did at least put effort in their performances and for someone like Evangeline Lilly hopefully Real Steel can be a stepping stone from her role on Lost to a promising film career.As a sport film it can be a little clichéd but as a whole it is still very well done, still exciting and action packed. Some elements could have trimmed but it is a decent little package.As a film it is good family entertainment. It is a drama, but not dark nor really light and there are some comic moments. Tonally it is just about right to show for children over the age of nine to adults.7.5/10

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is another jewel from Jerry Bruckheimer's production company. If you enjoyed Pirates of the Caribbean, National Treasure, Deja Vu, or the rom-com Confessions of a Shopaholic, you'll love this movie. There is enough action in this movie to satisfy the men, and enough romance to satisfy the women. The characters are unique and lovable. The quirky business entrepreneur, Sheik Almar(Alfred Molina), adds a comedic addition to Price of Persia. When I saw the movie Saturday night, the entire audience burst in laughter at his witty humor. The knife thrower, Seso(Steve Toussaint) is an interesting addition. Dastan's uncle, Nizam (Ben Kingsley) is powerful and intense in the scenes he is in. The back- flipping champion, Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal), isn't a typical prince. The feisty princess, Tamina (Gemma Arterton), is not what she appears to be.The plot is simple, but the twists are unexpected. Often I thought something was going to happen, but I was wrong in each case. If you've never played the Prince of Persia games like me, you'll love the unexpected events in this movie.The sets are delicious eye candy. The buildings of Morocco are intricate, and most extras authentic to the region. The animals, flying knives, and objects in the film looked real. Although I knew there were special effects for safety reasons, but I could not tell the difference. Hundreds, if not a thousand, people worked on the special and visual effects.The action, editing, and camera-work was fast and fantastic. 105 stunt doubles, stunt performers, and coordinators worked on Prince of Persia. There were thousands of different camera shots. Within a single action scene there was a shot on the ground, one above, one on the side, one on the face, all seconds long. Being a novice camera operator, I was in awe. This movie was difficult to create.There are few cons to Prince of Persia. The plot is simple, but it is entertaining. Not all was authentic, but it is not a documentary. I suggest you add it to your list of movies to watch, as it is well-made and the actors are brilliant. You'll be on the edge of your seat.

Back when I watched this movie, I was astonished by the magic it portrayed. It caught you off guard with the sensuality that is managed throughout it, specially with the intimacy level you are able to trespass. The movie not only shares images with the audience, but also very personal thoughts that a lot of girls can relate to in a certain point in their life. I think I watched it in a moment where I could completely see myself in Lucy. I guess that is the main reason I was astounded by the very personal conflict she was in and the honesty in which it's handled. The is also a very slow and realistic timing to it, sometimes nothing really happens, like in real life. The director is apparently not just interested in making big events take place every second, he just lets it flow. He gives you time to think about the various situations and doesn't look to confound you. He allows some space for you to observe the different point of views and make up you own mind about yours. And that is part of the magic of it. I loved it.

This movie was considerably better than Matrix Reloaded. I think for the most part it tied things up nicely and left just enough loose ends to potentially extend the story. I would also say that Revolutions had a very "Return of the Jedi" vibe going on. The switching between multiple places worked almost as well as Jedi and the ending left me looking for Ewoks.The acting is lukewarm with one exception. Hugo Weaving earned his paycheck a few times over. Just when I think a monotonous character is doomed to getting an emotionless performance, Mr. Weaving proves me wrong.As I said before, my biggest beef with Matrix: Revolutions is the ending. The final fight is anticlimactic as is everything that follows. Sure there's peace between the humans and the machines but it felt like the directors were ordered to cut it short for fear of the movie running long.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier is an exception film in every way and far superior to Captain America: The First Avenger, which fails to meet the standards set by this film. Captain America has left the demigod brothers and uncanny magic from the Avengers behind and has settled down in Washington D.C., living the life as a SHIELD agent beside Director Nick Fury and fellow Avenger Natasha Romanoff. One of the first things you will notice in this film is that it gives off a more realistic aura than other Marvel movies. There is no more chitauri or Thor's other-worldly abilities; everything in the film is of this world and could realistically occur. The characters, especially newcomer Sam Wilson, feel relatable. Sam Wilson and Steve instantly connect upon learning that both of them served in the military. Not everyone is a secret agent, but even Natasha Romanoff can relate to some viewers with her witty comebacks and her enjoyable personality. The script was phenomenally written! Many of the characters have lines that will stick with you even after the film's running time. Black Widow's speech at the end sent shivers down my spine. More importantly, during those dark, grim, and serious scenes, the screenwriters find a way to add some humor, which lightens the mood. The score is very fitting to the tone of the movie and compliments the action scenes very well. Emotion isn't really a word most people would correlate with a superhero action flick, but in this case, Marvel has found a way into our hearts. After the death of James "Bucky" Barnes in Captain America: The First Avenger, most viewers presumed him dead but Marvel decided to revive Steve's childhood best friend and bring him back as the notorious Winter Soldier. The final fight scene between Steve and Bucky, although it may be brutal and intense, will make your heart throb with emotion. The plot of the movie was thoroughly thought out and leaves no room for error. This film is riddled with plot twists, including the fact that Hydra has been secretly working under the noses of SHIELD agents. However, this came as a complete and total shock and somewhat felt as though they pulled it out of nowhere as the previous Marvel movies did nothing to set this up. Bucky comes back as the lethal Winter Soldier which was a shock to most. The Winter Soldier makes for a very intimidating antagonist. The action scenes with the Winter Soldiers are some of the most gritty, brutal, and captivating fight scenes of the century. The hand-to-hand combat between Steve and the Winter Soldier is excellently choreographed. The acting was stunning and realistic. Chris Evans does an amazing job portraying the loyal and patriotic behavior of Cap. Scarlett Johansson gives Black Widow a spunk we didn't see in the Avengers. Sebastian Stan as the Winter Soldier did a great job acting with just his eyes, as the Winter Soldier had minimum lines throughout the film. Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a must see for any die-hard Marvel fan and I completely recommend it for anyone just in the mood to enjoy a movie. I assure you ... this film will not disappoint...

You know what you are getting with this film, lot's of laughs.The Storyline is as unrealistic as you can get, but a well put together cast, carry it well, and will make you laugh from almost start to finish.One of Adam Sandlers best films, and i promise you, it will make you laugh, (as long as you don't mind films that are carried by a comic actor, rather than a comic script!)8/10.

Surely Lynch's best movie. I was lucky enough to catch this on cable the other night, what a supreme joy. Wonderful art direction and remarkable performances all round. The dark Dickensian sets of London are hauntingly beautiful. Hunt this one down, highly recommended.

Lemony S. wasn't bad as far as commercial films go, a good solid 5/10, which puts it in line with the vast bulk of everything you see in the neighborhood multiplex. I'd just like to point out a few annoying weaknesses. Primarily, the story was too episodic and uneven, too formulaic and constructed. Emily Browning's acting was absolutely horrible, and Liam Aiken should certainly change careers immediately. I have never seen less sympathetic child actors. Liam Aiken was particularly odious, coming across as a spoiled, stuck up, emotionally constipated and snobbish brat, and pretty much caused me to root for the Count Olaf character throughout the film. Overall, I'd say that inept casting ruined what little chance this film had of being good. Billy C. was his usual charming biscuit tin self. Jim C, as always, was brilliant. I just wish that he would be more cunning with his choice of roles. It seems perverse that he could have been in this year's best film (ESOTSM) and also in this crappy flick. PROTIP to you kids: requiring an audience to have prior knowledge of a book is verboten in the world of film.

This movie got a lot of publicity when it came out, and is deservedly #23 on the top 250 list here on the IMDb. In the off chance you are browsing that list for movies you haven't seen yet and thus reading this comment: do yourself a favor and go rent/steal/borrow this movie. A "tour de force" {I think that's French for bloody amazing :) } of movie-making, it has to be seen to be believed. It speaks not just to the degradations and hardships of life in a Rio slum, but in any impoverished area in the world. I just now saw it, the same weekend I caught "Secret Window" at the cinema here in Nippon, the 5th Element on TV (again) and "The Core" on DVD... like comparing a diamond in the rough to 3 lumps of cubic zirconium... buried in feces... in a septic tank... : )

I am appalled. It was utterly dreadful, pathetic and painful as you realize you have spent money and devoted time to waste it on such a horrific and epic failure of filmmaking. The movie has no real story that has some sort of an outcome. I absolutely do not see the point why they even made this movie. In my opinion, it should have never been released. I have made bad choices before, but this one beats them all by far. I feel robbed out of my time and money. I can't believe it has(had) such a high rating. It has to be some kind of propaganda to make people see it. I rely on this site to read reviews and look at ratings so I don't waste my hard-earned money…I will think twice next time for sure before trusting the ratings/reviews from this site!

An inspirational movie . . . I love it! I saw it once and am eager to see it again! Robin Williams is fantastic.

I own a TiVo. I had it tape this for me over the weekend while I was away. I just watched it. I want to die. I am serious. I have NEVER seen a worse movie before in my life, and I never write these reviews, but for this movie, I had to.Terrible plot, terrible acting, terrible writing, terrible everything.Let me sum up why it sucks in 2 points: Primitive humans who have been enslaved and living like cavemen for 1000 years learn to fly harrier jets in 7 days by using a flight simulator which is obviosuly powered by air since human society has been gone for 1000 years, and the 1000 year old jet fuel still works, as well as the weapons on the jets. Did I mention the cavemen learned to fly these in 7 days?A necular device created in the year 2000 (thats when the earth was taken over) which is small enough to be carried by a single human without difficulty is teleported to the alien homeworld and DESTROYS THE ENTIRE PLANET WITHIN MOMENTS OF DETONATION. Yes, the entire planet glows red then explodes.Oops. I ruined the ending. Thank me, serious. Dont see this atrocity. Put a bullet in your own head first. I'm gonna go look for my gun...

Napoleon Dynamite by all means is not a five-star masterpiece, and it mayn't be to everybody's tastes but I was surprised at how much I liked it, even with its problems. I can also say I do think there are much worse movies out there- Disaster Movie, Epic Movie, Home Alone 4, Cat in the Hat and Superbabies:Baby Geniuses 2 are much worse than this film.What I did like about Napoleon Dynamite was that it was unique, funny, quirky and original. Where it is not quite so good is in the episodic story structure and some of the supporting characters particularly comic-book-geek older brother and the ageing jock uncle were disappointingly one-dimensional and could have been further explored in terms of depth.Napoleon Dynamite does have a refreshingly distinctive time-warp look that recalls the style-challenged 1980s though, and that was refreshing in itself. The soundtrack is nice and nostalgic, and there are some genuinely laugh-out-loud funny moments. Also the ending is suitably uplifting and the limited horizons of young people in small-town America is nicely conveyed. The script is good and the direction is pretty solid.As are the performances. Jon Heder is delightfully eccentric in the title role, and he is really entertaining throughout, whether it is in the voice, the facial expressions or his character's actions. Napoleon is a blank-faced teen with carrot-coloured hair and seriously underdeveloped interpersonal skills, and here he tries to help his nerd of a best friend Pedro, amusingly played by Efren Ramirez. In terms of other supporting performances, Aaron Ruell also does a good job as Kip and while his role wasn't as well-sketched as it could have been, Jonathan Gries does nicely as Uncle Rico.Overall, not perfect, but amusing, quirky and unique. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Undoubtedly one of the best movies of the 90's.Will Smith delivers a brilliant smart mouthed performance alongside Tommy Lee Jones, in his best role since The Fugitive. The film delivers a fun park of entertainment from beginning to end. The gadgets outdo any Bond movie, the editing and direction are flawless. The special effects and the alien beings are hugely entertaining. The script is faced pace and full of humour, and the casting is immaculate. Perfect cinema. A collectors item.

Granted, the first film, Hellboy, had the harder task; to lay the foundation. The 2nd one, Hellboy 2: The Golden Army gets to have all the fun! HB2 takes the wonderfully eccentric cadre of misfits (the blue-collar demon slayer Hellboy, his fire-starting 'flame' Liz Sherman, amphibious ally Abe Sapien and the new, gaseous entity Johann Krauss) to the next level. And all the actors (Ron Perlman, Selma Blair, Doug Jones and now Seth McFarlane as Krauss' voice) rise to the challenge! Gone is the 'normal' human and audience-surrogate Agent Myers; and frankly, good rid-dens! Now the inmates run the asylum, and that is as it should be! The pacing is tighter this time around (didn't look at my watch once), unlike the first film which lagged in spots here and there. The 'mission' this time is to stop an underworld Prince Nuada (Luke Goss) from bringing about a revolution that'd topple humans from dominance (using the dormant, titular 'golden army') and bring about a new world order of supernatural beings (and he reasons that by doing so, he may be doing the planet a favor; making his character not entirely unsympathetic). Nuada's empathic twin Princess Nuala feels differently, and allies herself with Hellboy's gang of supernatural-buster misfits for help (and has a tender relationship with Abe in the process). Along the way there are highly imaginative sequences woven throughout the film that are simply stunning to behold. Director del Toro brings more artistic influence from his darkly beautiful "Pan's Labyrinth" into this film. But the sardonic, 'blunt instrument' Hellboy is there to keep it all wonderfully grounded (unlike the lofty, dull, eye-candy fests such as Lord of the Rings and other pompous, self-important epics). Love is a major new ingredient of this movie; the twin's empathy for each other, Hellboy's rocky ongoing relationship with Liz, and Abe's affection for Nuala. One of the greatest scenes in the movie is NOT a special effects laden fight scene, but a drunken duet by Abe and Hellboy of Barry Manilow's "Can't Smile Without You." It is my favorite scene in a film filled with gorgeous set pieces (another highlight is the destruction of a 'forest god' in the middle of an ugly urban setting; seemingly proving Prince Nuada's point). The reason this scene stands out is simple; throughout the gun-toting action and jaw-dropping, unearthly, elegant visual effects the non-human characters maintain a deep, yet simple humanity that is the best effect of all. Guilliermo del Toro and Mike Mignola have turned in a sequel akin to "Bride of Frankenstein" or "The Empire Strikes Back" in that it takes the world of the parent film into stratospheric heights of both spectacle and heart. Putting it simply; I liked the first Hellboy, but I LOVED Hellboy 2! And as Hellboy might say, "That ain't no crap!"

Yes, I'm going to go ahead and say that this is my favorite movie. Take that as a bias for this review, or take it as an endorsement, it's up to you.First off, as you've probably read, if you're interested in the US remake, watch the original. I'm not saying you should watch the original first or second, or to skip the US version, I'm just saying you should watch the original whenever. It's better than the remake, regardless of the order that you watch them. There is a desperation in the main character of the original version that is lost in the remake, and to me, that desperation was the driving force behind the plot.While spending his time locked up, you get to see Dae-su go through all the stages of grief. But the difference is that the final stage, acceptance, has a different effect on him in that he becomes almost empty. I used the word desperation before because he becomes a man who has nothing to live for except revenge. While the hallway scene may seem ridiculous on paper, I had no trouble believing it when I first watched the movie. In other movies, his actions would be those of a man possessed, but Oldboy is about a man who has suffered, was hollowed out, and no longer knows fear. Chan-wook Park is an amazing writing and director. I wish I knew more about film theory so I could explain the various ways he makes this film spectacular. The most important thing to me is how he conveys emotion. Even watching it with subtitles, you'll understand the characters' plights. On top of all that, the twists and turns are completely unexpected assuming you haven't seen the remake or the ripoff "The Samaritan".If you're like me, after watching this, you'll go out and find the rest of Chan-wook Park's library.

The film is so integrated into the propaganda system, that its subliminal warning of Iran's "threat" offered as Obama is preparing, yet again, to attack Iran. That Affleck's "true story" of good-guys-vs-bad-Muslims is as much a fabrication as Obama's justification for his war plans is lost in PR-managed plaudits. As an independent working journalist, I say that 'Argo' is "a propaganda movie in the truest sense, one that claims to be innocent of all ideology." That is, it debases the art of film-making to reflect an image of the power it serves.The true story is that, for 34 years, the US foreign policy elite have seethed with revenge for the loss of the shah of Iran, their beloved tyrant, and his CIA-designed state of torture. When Iranian students occupied the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, they found a trove of incriminating documents, which revealed that an Israeli spy network was operating inside the US, stealing top scientific and military secrets. Today, the duplicitous Zionist ally - not Iran - is the one and only nuclear threat in the Middle East.In 1977, Carl Bernstein, famed for his Watergate reporting, disclosed that more than 400 journalists and executives of mostly liberal US media organizations had worked for the CIA in the past 25 years. They included journalists from the New York Times, Time, and the big TV broadcasters. These days, such a formal nefarious workforce is quite unnecessary. In 2010, the New York Times made no secret of its collusion with the White House in censoring the WikiLeaks war logs. The CIA has an "entertainment industry liaison office" that helps producers and directors remake its image from that of a lawless gang that assassinates, overthrows governments and runs drugs. As Obama's CIA commits multiple murder by drone, Affleck lauds the "clandestine service.. that is making sacrifices on behalf of Americans every day..

Director Kathryn Bigelow ("Point Break") has an uncanny ability to capture the adrenaline in an unbearably tense situation, and she displays this unique skill throughout this propulsive 2009 battlefield drama. In fact, Mark Boal's blunt, economic screenplay (based on his own experiences embedded in a bomb squad) largely eschews the politics around the Iraqi conflict in favor of the escalating madness infiltrating an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) unit. Their unenviable job is to dispose of undetonated bombs in the war-torn streets of Baghdad during the post-invasion period in 2004. The story's focus is on the new team leader, Sergeant First Class William James, who depends on the support of Sergeant J.T. Sanborn and Specialist Owen Eldridge who are assigned to communicate with James via a radio inside his bomb-suit and provide him with rifle cover while he examines improvised explosive devices (IEDs).Sanborn and Eldridge are still reeling from the sudden death of their previous leader, Staff Sergeant Thompson, when the far more reckless James upsets their established procedures with his extraordinary resolve. James turns out to be a more complex figure than his original bravado indicates, and Sanborn and Eldridge respond by questioning their own perspective on risk versus responsibility. A key factor in understanding James' psyche is his relationship with a local boy who calls himself Beckham because of his love of soccer. This leads James to acts that endanger his team and stretch them beyond wartime bravery and into James' obsessive mission. With visual flair and kinetic editing, Bigelow seems far less concerned with sustaining a narrative, although in this case, her own singular sense of film-making bravado overshadows the more conventional plot directions she introduces later in the story. Jeremy Renner is a terrific find as James because he manages to deepen the character's cocksure attitude with every traumatizing episode and without the need for sentiment.That's because he conveys both the uncompromising concentration and the resulting adrenaline rush James feels within the desperation of a free-for-all combat zone. Illustrating their characters' inner conflict in different ways, Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty play Eldridge and Sanborn skillfully. Mackie accurately shows Eldridge struggling to be the professional soldier, while Geraghty reflects a more humanistic perspective, the one to which we civilian viewers can probably most relate, and he is especially affecting in his climactic confessional scene. Guy Pearce, David Morse, and Ralph Fiennes show up for brief but surprisingly effective cameos. Barry Ackroyd ("United 93") is responsible for the vivid, burnished cinematography. The extras on the 2010 DVD are sparse but quite good. The most informative feature is the commentary track from Bigelow and Boal, who both discuss production details and historical context to allow for a greater appreciation of the story being told. There is also a twelve-minute making-of featurette, which is pretty standard as these extras go. Lastly, an image gallery accompanies a 23-minute Q&A session with Boal and Bigelow recorded at the Institute of Contemporary Art in London.

The Last Samurai is an entertaining action adventure drama that was much better than expected. Writer/Director Edward Zwick is admirable in making this action adventure epic tale about Nathan Algren a disillusioned Civil War Captain who goes to Japan to fight the Samurai and instead ends up pledging himself to their cause. Tom Cruise stars as Algren and he turns in probably one of his best performances to date. In recent years he's been getting a lot of crap from the press because of his behavior but Tom Cruise proves to still be a talented actor none the less with this film. Cruise immerses himself into the character Algren who goes through a major transformation and he certainly shows his range as an actor. Well done. Ken Watanabe is equally impressive as Katsumoto, a Samurai leader facing a vanishing way of life, whose destiny becomes intertwined with that of the American Captain. Watanabe proves his talent as an actor giving audiences such a well rounded character in Katsumoto who eventually gains your sympathy because you know this man is willing to die in order to protect his people. Watanabe had nice chemistry with Cruise which really showed on the screen making their growing friendship and respect for each other very believable. Timothy Spall is convincing as Simon Graham a cynical Britich translator in his limited screen time who helps Algren in his quest. He provides a little comic relief from time to time that lightened up the serious mood of the film. Tony Goldwyn does a pretty good job as the villain Lieutenant Colonel Bagley whom Algren deeply hates despite not being given a whole lot to do in his short screen time. Goldwyn does what his role requires though. Billy Connolly does the best he can with his small part as Algren's old army colleague Zeb Grant whose written out rather quickly but like Goldwyn he does a decent job with his brief role in the film. The rest of the cast including the family Algren stays with while among the Samurai and the men who them played all turn in exceptional performances. The epic battle sequences are well executed/paced, intense, and realistic giving audiences a look at what warfare was probably like back then. For a film that's 154 minutes I was worried it would feel overlong like (Artifical Intelligence, There Will Be Blood, or Avatar to name a few) but the story kept my interest making the running time fly by at a steady pace. It's one of those rare two and half hours movies (with the exception of The Departed, The Dark Knight, and Blood Diamond which were about just as long but kept me entertained throughout it's running time) that I can watch easily without getting bored because the film pulls you in with a compelling story and interesting characters. In a way The Last Samurai shares similarities with most recently Avatar but I thought it was much better handled in this one than James Cameron's overlong sci-fi action adventure which was a letdown considering the hype built around it at least to me. The Last Samurai has some flaws the good however more than outweighs the bad with this one. A few characters (Connolly and Goldwyn particular) sort of get the short end of the stick development wise but I guess they're in a long enough so you know a little bit about them. Other than that though there wasn't too much I didn't enjoy about this film. Also worth mentioning is the music by Hans Zimmer which fit the tone of the film perfectly and was full of emotion. The location they chose for the setting was beautiful. It added so much with very little CG which they blended into the story seamlessly without going overboard on the effects (A mistake I feel Tranformers 2 made). Overall The Last Samurai is a well made action adventure drama epic that was much better than I anticipated. It's now one of the my all time favorite films along with The Dark Knight, The Departed, Batman Begins, and Blood Diamond to name a couple which were all epics in their own way. If you're looking for a good entertaining movie to watch than you can't go wrong with the Last Samurai. It has character development, just enough of intense action, drama, some suspense, a little humor, and impressive performances by the cast (especially Cruise and Watanabe) who make this film worth the time to watch. You won't be disappointed with this one.

This is still a very professional self aware cinema. As some reviewers here have already mentioned not all the characters are evenly written and some of the Statesmen agents are nothing more than time fillers, which is both a shame and a waste of talent. I don't think it has to do with the nationality of the characters as both the American president and Poppy are wonderful cartoons brilliantly performed by Bruce Greenwood and Julianne Moore, I think they simply had too many cartoons to present on screen, and some simply didn't get enough screen time to develop. But for me, this the only real fault of a real fun movie, spoofing cinematic genre as well as social attitudes with a very self assured hand. If they do want to keep it going they will have to further develop these underdeveloped roles, and I'm sure they can do it if they apply themselves.

WILD WILD WEST truly is a stinker of a film. Words cannot adequately express just how inane and endlessly trite this stupid, effects-filled movie is; ostensibly it's the big screen adaptation of a '60s cult TV show, but in reality it brings out the very worst of the Hollywood blockbuster sensibility.The main problem with this film is that it goes for the action comedy template, particularly heavy on the buddy buddy humour. Will Smith was riding high after MEN IN BLACK, but he's really bad here, and I mean really bad. As for Kevin Kline, you can barely believe that this was the same guy from A FISH CALLED WANDA; you actually feel sorry for him. The humour is all of the toilet variety, with a particular focus on oddly misogynistic cross-dressing jokes which quickly become old and rather disgusting. It's one of the unfunniest so-called comedies ever to make it to the screen.Kenneth Branagh gives the worst performance of his career as the hammy disabled villain, and much of the extensive budget was given over to a huge CGI mechnical spider which hasn't aged very well at all. As for the actresses, including Bai Ling and Salma Hayek, they're literally treated as pieces of meat. Barry Sonnenfeld has directed some junk in his time but even he must be ashamed of this one. It's hard to believe that between them the writers of this thing were responsible for the likes of PREDATOR, TREMORS, and WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT.Incidentally, WILD WILD WEST holds a special significance for me as the only film I've ever walked out of at the cinema. I believe in staying to watch a film to the end, no matter how bad - after all, you've paid to be there - but this was so appallingly awful that I felt I had no choice but to leave halfway through. Having recently watched the thing again right through to the end, I'm glad I made that choice.

Tim Burton managed to leave me totally void of any emotion through the entirety of this movie. I didn't like it or dislike it, just totally middle of the road. It looked real nice as Burton has a flair for the Gothic but it was as if he just didn't care about the material enough. Frankenweenie is testament that when the work is personal he can produce wonderful idea's and marry them to film with ease. Nobody springs to life and aesthetically the film looks decent but without the small details that set his notable works apart.There is no firm plot. The family have money troubles, Depp turns up and reveals a hidden treasure room. Money troubles gone. Seriously, that quick. The movie avoids any real interesting plot devices such as the recent string of killings upon Depps return. Or the story of the boy who can apparently see his dead mother. How about the secret around Moretz troubled teen, no we'll just address those in the last five minutes. The love interest also has a back story summed up in a matter of moments. The tumultuous relationship between Depp and Green opens this movie and delivers for the small part. Overall though it plays out exactly as you would expect. You'll be left wondering why the manner in which they deal with the witch didn't just happen right off the bat.Considering the eclectic talent filled cast you'd think there would at least be some interesting performances. There isn't. All actors deliver the bare minimum, totally due to the script issues. This just leaves the meat for Depp and Green. Green just mails it in and Depp plays his role like Jack Sparrow dressed for Halloween.I will never watch this again.

I tend to underestimate Steve Carell on the big screen probably because of titles like "Dinner with Schmucks", "Evan Almighty", and of course, "The 40 Year-Old Virgin", but when given the opportunity as he did in 2007's "Dan in Real Life" and as he does in this grown-up 2011 comedy, he can provide unexpected dimension to an otherwise put-upon, sad-sack character. Co-directed by Glenn Ficarra and John Requa and written by Dan Fogelman, this movie is overlong at 118 minutes and has contrivances galore, but it's also smart, shrewdly observed, and richly character-driven. These qualities override the flaws primarily due to a well-assembled cast that also includes Ryan Gosling, Julianne Moore, Emma Stone and Marisa Tomei. Fogelman's screenplay punctuates big life lessons with clever scenes and ensemble set pieces that really snap and play like a Shakespearean roundelay.The plot centers on nebbish suburbanite Cal Weaver, who after two decades of seemingly content marriage, finds out his wife Emily has been unfaithful with her co-worker and wants a divorce. As the reality of his situation settles in, he moves from comatose to resentful to relentlessly morose at which point he has a chance meeting in a trendy bar with a self-confident womanizer named Jacob Palmer. Through reasons that go unexplained, Jacob decides to make Cal his pet project and make him over into a smooth-talking dating machine in an amusing montage that climaxes with a date with Kate, a jittery middle schoolteacher who turns out to be something of a nymphomaniac. Emily stumbles in her newly liberated state, while her and Cal's 13-year-old son Robbie grapples with a long-standing crush on his high-school-age babysitter Jessica who is smitten with someone substantially older. Meanwhile, Jacob goes through a transformation of his own as he falls for a sassy-smart young lawyer named Hannah who initially doesn't succumb to his fool-proof pick-up lines. All the characters intersect rather conveniently, and needless to say, complications ensue.Ficarra and Requa have a nice way of shaping Fogelman's dialogue into the pacing of the scenes, but they spend far too long in the middle of the story making the loose ends look more pronounced toward the end. Dexterous performances which effortlessly balance the comic and humane elements are essential to making the shenanigans work, and they're here in spades. Carell mines his character Cal in unexpected ways but doesn't lose his keen sense of comedy. As Jacob, Gosling is a nice surprise as he breezes through a role that could have been far more repellent had love not befuddled him so completely. Stone, currently Hollywood's "It" girl, nicely complements him as the acerbic Hannah, and their extended sequence at his elegant home is really well played by both actors. As Emily, Moore is the rare actress who can play a character who commits an unforgivable act and still can elicit viewer sympathy. Jonah Bobo plays Robbie with deadpan precociousness, while the too-thin Analeigh Tipton fluently brings out all the awkward gawkiness in Jessica. Tomei's turn as Kate is brief albeit a memorable one highlighted by a very funny classroom scene, while Kevin Bacon plays Emily's co-worker with his character's smarminess in check. This is one of the better comedies released this year.

I remember seein this in '97 in Sterling theater, South Mumbai with my friends. Revisited this recently on a DVD. This is writer Kevin Williamson's follow up to the successful Scream. So expectations were high. The plot - After their high school graduation, four friends head off to the beach but on the way home they accidentally hit n kill someone. To avoid police problems, they decide to throw him into the water and promise each other that they will never discuss that incident ever. One year later they start getting messages from somebody who knows what happened. Later they are stalked by a rain-coat wearing mystery man who uses a big hook. The performances from Jennifer Love Hewitt, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Ryan Phillippe and Freddie Prinze Jr. were all decent. Director Jim Gillespie (Joy ride) did a good job in creating enuff suspense n tension. The ending wasn't predictable. The killer in a raincoat with a hook was an effective n intimidating one. Although the body count is surprisingly low, the tension was enuff. One of the most memorable n tension filled scene is the scene in the alley, with Gellar jus ten feet away from a musical parade/safety n the killer chasing her. The second one is the car in a wooded lane in broad daylight parked outside Anne Heches house. Yeah u heard right. Heche in a small role.

This movie was so corny and unimaginative, a real Chris Colombus piece of hack work. The great cast saves the film from being utter dreck, but otherwise this is pretty dim, formulaic movie-making. Compare it to its announced competition, movies like The Wizard of Oz, Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, The Never Ending Story, or even more recent fare like The Secret Garden or Photographing Fairies. C'mon, you've got to admit this flick is mediocre at best. Stop lapping up the hype and buying into every stupid trend they throw at you. Discriminate a little.

Schindler's List is by far the most powerful and profound movie going experience I've ever had. No other film I have seen even comes close to the kind of power generated by Schindler's List. Spielberg did things with the medium of film that I never dreamed were possible. Somehow he managed to raise the artform to a transcendant, supernatural level - something that no other film in history (at least that I have seen) has accomplished. Citizen Kane may have set the standard for film, but Schindler's List completely shattered it - breaking free of the realm of normal movie making. Viewing Schindler's List went far beyond a merely passive experience of viewing a poweful film - for the first and only time I can remember, I was living the experience in a way that is almost inexplicable to me. It was a truly awesome existential and spiritual experience. There are single scenes in Schindler's List that are more brilliant, profound and powerful than entire films I have seen. There are sequences and images that haunted me for years afterwards and still haunt me. To this day I get choked up and tearie-eyed when I recall certain scenes or images to memory. Apart from that, the film is brilliantly shot with the best black and white cinematography I have seen since Citizen Kane. The screenplay is remarkably subtle and the performances are first rate all around. Liam Neeson, who has amazing screen presence, was the perfect choice to play the character of Oskar Schindler - a man who is likeable and charasmatic, but ultimately mysterious. And Ralph Fiennes was mesmerizing as the evil and complex Amon Goeth character.Although this film is by far the high point of all my movie going experiences, it is also the low point in that every other film that I have seen since (even really great ones) seems so mediocre and ordinary in comparison.

If this is your first time at Fight Club then you probably won't like this. Like me i didn't like it the first time but on my second viewing i noticed how unique(and completely insane)this movie really is. This is one of David Fincher's best movies.This movie has one of the best casts ever. Brad Pitt, Edward Norton and Helena Bonham Carter. Three of the best actors/actress out there today.David Fincher. If you ever see these 2 words on a movie then you will know that you will get quality. Fight Club, Seven and just this year The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Fincher has proved himself one of the best directors today.I highly recommend it. Watching Tyler Durden(one of the best characters ever) rule the screen was one of the best moments i had watching this movie. If you haven't seen this movie then you shouldn't be sitting at your computer.9/10

Okay, yes, it's a good movie. Interesting script, loaded with good actors and nicely directed. But I read one reviewers remarks that said to forget "Goodfellows" and "Raging Bull" as this is Martin's finest work. To him I say 2 things (1) put down the pipe (2) step away from the keyboard. Goodfellows is still the definitive Mob movie ( The Godfather being the definitive Mafia film ) and there is no movie ever made that rivals the visual style that Raging Bull brought to the screen. To me The Departed is a movie about corruption. I never felt any sense of organized crime ,it was more like organized chaos. Characters are never developed or made memorable , thats all sacrificed to make more room for showing how intense the movie is suppose to be. Maybe because 2006 was such a lackluster year this will get more praise than its due. I enjoyed it for what it offered and will leave it at that. I think Jack Nicholson and Matt Damon were fine but it was Leonardo DiCaprio that gave the best performance. Since Martin Scorsese has never won an Oscar for Best Director he will probably be given the lead to win it come next Spring. Even though I see nothing here that he hasn't done better in other films.. Once again, its good,,just not as good as it's being touted..

If the transformers were created millions of light-years away, why is there a samurai transformer who talks with a Japanese accent? Why do they all talk in slang or like little children? Why is there a transformer smoking a metal cigar? What in the name of almighty God could he possibly be smoking it for? He's made out of metal. Also, if Megatron were able to take over the body that was created using his head, why were all the other transformers made in the lab completely evil and completely resigned to following his every whim? Transformers: Age of Extinction, proving once and for all that a giant budget trumps all other story elements in the minds of the masses. Also, this turd was far longer than it needed to be.

I'm in LOVE WITH THIS MOVIE!!!!! To start off I'm going to say that yes I did watch this movie before I ever read any of the books, and I do know you are going to say that's a big no no because it changes your opinion of the books. But I don't see it like that at all, I first watched this movie with my best friends whilst having a sleepover at 12 in the morning. But I the whole time I was in suspense loving the acting wishing I could have been part of this amazing project, as soon as the movie ended i texted my parents asking for the books that I needed to read urgently it was a matter of life or death to me. As soon as I got all of the books for Christmas I managed to read all of The City Of Bones on Christmas Day, I just couldn't put the book down at all. As soon as I finished reading I thought I don't get why people said to me I shouldn't have watched the movie before I read the book. I loved both of them, too me the movie is AMAZING I think that thy have captured the characters the setting and the whole general vibe right. I was so impressed, I don't know how it's possible but after that I started liking the movie even more. IT IS BY FAR MY FAVOURITE MOVIE EVER!!!

Keanu is GREAT in this movie. He fights, and kicks butt like ain't nobodies business. I can't believe all you naysayers out there are dissing him. It takes a lot of balls seeming how I bet you couldn't do half as good of a performance as he did. It really blows that you guys make fun of someone because he does a better job at something than you could ever do in this lifetime or the next... The movie is very noteworthy and Keanu's performance convinced me. I don't understand why everyone is bagging on him and the movie. I personally believe that this is one of Keanu's best performances since Speed and Sweet November.

****SPOILER****This is a philosophical comment to the POINT of the film, so it is quite in-depth. Although it does not go too much into the plot directly, the film is more enjoyable if one discovers said points of the films for oneself. Continue at own risk. Somerset: "The first thing they teach you, is that if you are being raped, don't shout "rape". Shout "fire". THEN people will come running..... I just can't go on working in a place that nurtures apathy as if it were a virtue".The point of Seven is moral more than religious. Its point concerns APATHY, and explains how apathy actually IS evil. A New Testament example of this is the story of Lazarus (Don't get me wrong. I'm an atheist and deeply loathe the bible as a whole. Nevertheless, in part, the bible has a point here.). The wealthy man is deemed evil (in the eyes of God/eternity/objectivity) because of his apathy towards the needy (Lazarus) - evil enough, in fact, to be cast into hell. The moral of the story (of Lazarus as well as Seven) is that active harm is not necessary for one to be evil. One merely needs to abstain from doing good. Not all evil people NEED to actively harm others to get what they want. Some already have it, and choose to let others die at their door.So I have no doubt that the people that Doe killed were evil. I have no doubt that Somerset hated them as well. Only Somerset was to loving a person to take on the role of judge, jury and executioner. Both Somerset and Doe have let the apathy of the world drive them to give up. Doe wants to die and take some of those cold-hearted bastards with him, and, hopefully, make his point and thus change the world. Somerset merely wants to escape to some distant place in the country. But in the end, Somerset simply can't turn his back on the world. He wants to go on trying to help. Probably inspired by Mills passion for justice. On a more depressing note, I believe that the moral of the story is, that these vices (seven deadly sins) are what make us human. Only one person has none of these vices - Somerset - and he is lonely and miserable. Inhuman(ly good). "With much wisdom comes much sadness, and he that furthers his wisdom furthers his sadness" (Ecclesiastes 1:18, loosely translated).Mills has it sooo easy, not reflecting on life the way Somerset does. He is nevertheless truly good, in my opinon. And that is the only real hole in the pattern of the plot. Wrath need not be a vice/sin. Mills did not beat up his wife, nor run amuck and kill people or anything like that. His wrath was always just, and it never hurt the innocent. I completely love both him and Somerset.This is the greatest, deepest, most insightful film I have ever seen.