Reviews

I think stating that this is not a well done movie is unfair as I have seen some comments made. Granted this is not an Oscar winning movie, the level of acting by the Sandra Bullock will eventually gain her favor with Oscar someday. This movie was disorienting, but I believe it was by design to draw the audience into having empathy for the Sandra Bullock's character. This allows us to feel just as confused and uncomfortable as her character would have to feel in the circumstances she has been placed in. The movie has a sad, almost depressing feel to it, its not the type of movie where you feel all warm and fuzzy after watching it. But I will say, it made me want to go over and hug my wife and be grateful that she is with me after watching it. This is definitely a movie that will make you want to get closer to those that you care for and thats for sure. My wife and I appreciated this movie, even if it was not an enjoyable experience which I believe was the intent of the writer and director.

I read this novel less than a year ago and thought that the writing was on par with the DaVinci code by Dan Brown. I was very disappointed with the TV adaptation of this novel and felt that there was a lack of the menace that was portrayed in the book. I also felt that the kitschy score really was part of the problem. It didn't have the feel of a major conspiracy that the author of the novel had done a very good job of conveying. Raymond Khoury has to be disappointed with this film. Not to mention the waste of the talent in it.

Overall, the writing was stiff, the action was condensed and not well explained. The level of intrigue surrounding the Church's involvement really made it seem that the writers were afraid of offending anyone in the catholic church, or anyone who is catholic. Unfortunately the premise of what the book was about centers on a religious cover up much like the DaVinci code did.

Okay, so this is technically a new series on USA, but it certainly doesn't feel like one. It has the look and feel of a well made motion picture. The writing is well done and the characters are fleshed out and seem believable. If I were a person living the Hollywood life, I would be ashamed of the way that people in that lifestyle are portrayed, even if this program seems like it is a caricature of real life, just judging from all of the media hype surrounding many real life celebrities makes this program all the more believable and real. I am not one to usually sit down and watch what is usually advertised as a "chick flick", however, I was actually drawn into this new series and look forward to see what happens next. Its more like a comedy/drama than any other way of describing it. I would highly recommend it to anyone.

I bought Big Fish sight unseen because of the trailers I saw on it and because I am a big fan of Tim Burton and Ewan McGregor. This film was delightful and was more of a mainstream drama than anything I have seen Tim Burton direct before. Granted, there were some mystical characters in the film, but overall it was very much a well done story about a grown man who desperately wants to find out who the man who is his father really is. His father played by Albert Finney as an old man and Ewan McGregor as a young man tendency to stretch the truth a bit about events that occurred in his life. The son played by Billy Crudup appears resentful and embarassed of his father because his father won't answer a question with a straight answer. The whole film is a combination of flashback and current events documenting the life of a truly remarkable man, whether the fathers stories make him more interesting or not, the man himself is remarkable simply in his ability to spin yars like he can. The movie has a rather undramatic ending but it does leave the viewer with closure as the son finally understands who his dad is, even if he was reluctant to believe the story at first. Tim Burton does a very good job in guiding this film from start to finish. It is comical at times, heartfelt at others, but at no time does the story seem so completely out in left field to be unbelievable. I was leery of taking my children 11 & 6 to see this film as from the trailers, it appeared to be somewhat scary, however after seeing it, I feel I would be comfortable in sharing it with children.

I was surfing the channels the other night and ran across this movie just starting on one of the innumerable movie channels on my satellite lineup and decided to watch it. 40 days and 40 nights is funny, there are several places in the movie where it is hard not to laugh, not only with the goofy situations Josh Hartnett finds himself in, however, the running joke about he not being able to control his urges and impulses especially in light of the frequent attempts by his friends and colleagues to trip him up gets a little old and annoying. His reason for his chastity is something that leaves the audience wondering why doing it is going to help his romantic life, and it is frustrating learning how sex driven Hartnett's characters is along with many of the supporting cast members in the film. All in all, it was worth watching when there as nothing more enlightenening on the tube at midnight but reruns and infomercials, however, it would not have been a movie I would have been proud to have spent money to see, either by rental of by going to the theater to see it.

Underworld is a movie that probably should be dubbed a Matrix wannabe. The look and feel of the two movies are very similar, however where Underworld differs is that the Matrix has a very complex story underneath the action. Underworld is filmed in a gray tone which lends a creepy air to the environment, however, seeing vampires and werewolves battle it out with futuristic machine guns and other high tech weaponry makes the story seem a bit odd and distinctly unbelievable. The plotline and story are very poorly defined until nearly the end of the film and only then does some redemption come for the whole film. For the first ninety minutes of the film we are left watching basically one futuristic gun battle after another with little snippets of conversation pertaining to the ongoing thousand year war, There is hardly any attention spent giving the audience any indication of why these two species of legendary creatures are at war in the first place. The revelations of the roots of the war at the climax of the film feel out of place and seem to not really explain why the war would rage for as long as it has. You also are left switching sides as to who are the "good guys" and who are the "bad guys" in the film which I think was intentionally done by the creators of the film to keep the audience off balance. This only intensifies the confusion of the audience as to why this war is so important to these creatures and why it is taking place in the first place, and why for that matter are we as the audience witnessing it at all.

The special effects and creature creations for the movie are really exciting to watch, however there is so much human type of violence in the movie that it seems extremely hard to believe that aside from pointy teeth the vampires have throughout the movie that these creatures are really vampires and werewolves. Overall, there were alot of opportunities wasted in making this a really good horror flick, opportunities that could have elevated this movie from the modiocre, run of the mill shoot em ups it is right now. Hopefully the producers see some of the negative comments like this and make a better film for the sequel, as this one is only so so.

Far too seldom does a film come along which can capture one's imagination and experience a movie not only from the mind, but from one's heart. Lost in Translation is one of those films. Being somewhat of a skeptic, I didn't bring alot of expectations into watching this movie, as it was so well received by the critics that I knew that by it's hype alone, it was probably a good movie. I spoke to a friend who said that watching the movie, he wanted to dislike it as it was filmed in a documentary style with choppy editing, and left the viewer witnessing third person the story unfolding on the screen. My friend said that as much as he wanted to hate this movie, he couldn't because it was too good and he ended up loving it. In some ways I feel the same way. Experiencing the sensory overload of a visit to Tokyo Japan through the eyes and ears of two extremely lonely American insomniacs, we are left feeling as confused over the surroundings as the characters played by Murray and Johanssen. Both characters are obviously not very happy with their lives until they meet each other and experience a whirlwind platonic friendship that could have advanced into something of a fling had either character allowed it to happen. The fact that they both resisted and remained platonic I think is the pinnacle of the achievement of this movie. Both characters realize their feelings for each other but yet act responsibly in honoring their respective marriages. The relationship that develops between these two is beautiful and enlightening and leaves the viewer with a wish for something good to happen in their own lives. This movie has several moments of comedy interspersed throughout but it is not in an of itself a funny movie. It is enjoyable because it is very real and you are left believing that what you see on the screen could have very well taken place, maybe thousands of times throughout the world. This movie will be one that people watch more than once because it is ultimately a feel good movie.

Watching Cold Creek Manor was a two hour long Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode in my living room. The storyline and plotline became somewhat muddy about a third of the way through the film. What started out as a spooky encounter with a house that for all intents and purposes looks haunted. A haunted house would have really changed the look and feel of the situation experienced by the family headed by Dennis Quaid and Sharon Stone who purchase this rural mansion. Instead we are subjected to the rantings and ravings of a clearly psychologically disturbed homeopath who is hellbent on making life miserable for the family who bought his ancestral home. The motivation for his hostility and revenge are very vague and leaves much to be desired when trying to understand what's up with this guy. You get the impression from the film that it wants to be a much deeper film early on when the family encounters the Manor, but for some reason, the directors took the film into an entirely new direction making the movie into a summer date creepshow. You as a viewer are continually asking yourself as you watch the action on the screen why is he doing that or why are they being so stupid and you are really left asking for more from the film than the film is giving. There were a few scenes in the movie which left me feeling really creepy, but overall the scary scenes were nothing new from other movies I have seen before. This film could have been so much more, I even felt that casting of Sharon Stone being married to Dennis Quaid was somewhat hard to picture the two of them together. The only cast member who stood out and really put on a stellar performance was Christopher Plummer who puts on an asounding performance as the elderly father of the nutcase of the film. A disaappointing film at best, this is best viewed at home as a rental.

Having seen many of the Coen brothers films and seen practically everything that Tom Hanks has ever done, I was excited with anticipation in seeing the collaboration of this team. I was left disappointed and felt roped in to seeing a film that was OK at best. The movie starts out in a very disjointed way as the main characters are introduced to the audience with harsh edits between scenes. The audience is not given any explanation as to what they are seeing or why they are seeing it. It is only about 25 minutes into the film that Tom Hanks character (The Professor Dorr) actually introduces the members of his band (of criminals). The whole premise of this film is that a group of smalltime criminals sets up operations in an elderly black womans house to tunnel next door into the vaults of a small riverboat casino. The elderly womans character is the only character in the film which the audience connects with and can actually relate to. For the most part all of the criminals characters are drawn up very two dimensional including the character played by Tom Hanks. I have read some reviews stating that Tom looks like he had more fun doing this film than he has had since making Forrest Gump back in the mid nineties. Nevertheless, the Coen brothers fascination with morbid humor does show occasionally throughout the film as well as their decision to use period type folk music to enhance their soundtrack is typical of such films as Raising Arizona and O' brother where Art Thou? The comedic moments in this film contrary to the trailers I have seen are few and far between and I was left with a feeling of wanting more to make this film complete. Having never seen the original movie that this version is based on I can only suggest to the Coen brothers that they start writing their own material again as they seem to have a much better time at it when they come up with everything from scratch. I also felt that there was an excessive amount of profanity in this film that I cannot remember from other films the Coen brothers have made. Ultimately a disappointing film, lucky it was on discount night at the theater or I would feel more cheated than I already do. I won't even consider purchasing the DVD when it comes out!

When I first saw Schindlers list in the theater when it first came out, I was left stunned and emotionally drained. Now with the release of the film on DVD I am still in awe of the precision and accuracy that it portrays of the atrocities committed by the Nazi's during the second world war. Stephen Spielbergs decision to make the movie entirely in black and white was pure genius and shows why he he is as successful of a director as he is. This film is such a departure from other films that Spielberg has made and is a testament to his sincere embracing of the storyline and content of the story. While this film is long by most standards, nearly twice as long as most contemporary films, it does not drag and keeps the audience rapt attention. It is the type of film which comes along once in a great while which truly captures the imagination of the audience. The subject matter makes this film one which one truly cannot express as an enjoyable film, but on a higher level it is insightful and inspires one to really see how one person can truly change the world, at least their part of the world. Oskar Schindler was a scheming war profiteer who had no interest in any part of world politics, the winds of war were blowing in his direction and he took full advantage of it. As the war progressed and he became a witness to the horrific acts committed by the Nazi's against the Jews he became to see the Jews in a different light to what the political propaganda was saying and he developed a conscience which ultimately led him to expend vast sums of money in bribes and political favors to protect his workers in his factory, initially under the guise of needing to keep trained workers in his factory to maintain production, but eventually because he could see how his workers people were being made to suffer and were being brutally murdered simply because of a misguided political doctrine. Acting in this movie is superb, Lliam Neeson was nominated for best actor for his portrayal of Oskar Schindler and ultimately lost the award to Tom Hanks portrayal of a dying HIV positive lawyer in Philadelphia, this was truly one of those times when the Academy had a very difficult decision to make as both actors justifiably deserved the award. Ralph Fiennes was nominated as best supporting actor for his role as the homicidal concentration camp Kommindant Amon Goeth, he ultimately lost the award to Tommy Lee Jones for his work in the Fugitive. Surprisingly one actor who did not receive a nomination, but should have would be Ben Kingsley who deservedly could easily have won the award for his portrayal of Jewish accountant Itzhak Stern who cooperated and assisted Oskar Schindler in running his Enamelware factory and ultimately used his intelligence to manipulate the system to encompass as many unskilled laborers as possible into Schindlers factory, persons who otherwise would have gone to the death camps as they were primarily musicians, writers and teachers, all who were considered high priority execution material by the Nazi regime. This is a truly remarkable, emotional and moving film that will easily stand the test of time and remain a classic for years to come, it would be highly recommended and should be mandatory viewing material for all high school aged students who wish to graduate, as this film is not just a depiction of the events of World War II, but is also a reflection of the inner monster that lives within all mankind, hatred, and how there also lives within us a capacity to do great good for our fellow man.

Aside from the fact that this movie was made for installment Mini series television, there is little that separates this film from a major motion picture release type quality. The cast that portrays the Band of Brothers of Easy Company are easily believable and likeable. Damian Lewis an Englishman does a really nice job playing the lead role in this film. With real life interviews with the men who were being portrayed on the film preceding each episode, it is really nice to have an air of authenticity to the action on the screen. Filmed in the same gray scale toned film as Saving Private Ryan the colors are washed out and lend an air of realism to what you are watching. Changes in directorial style from one episode to another are not noticeable and the musical score throughout the series is nothing short of magnificent. This is a must for World War II and other military buff to add to their collection of favorite movies. I purchased the DVD set before actually viewing anything more than the trailer and I was hooked. I have watched the series at least three or four times since I bought it and think it is one of the best mini-series ever made. Using state of the art pyrotechnics and realistic sets and on-site locations, you are left with the feel and the sights and sounds of the Western parts of Europe, from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany, at all times, the realism and dedication to detail is truly noteworthy. The action in this film is nowhere as gritty or intense as the opening or closing scenes in Saving Private Ryan, nor as gory either, but there are several characters who are injured or killed through the course of the film who die what one could only imagine suffer painful, and horrific wounds, and while the graphic content of this film is not nearly as graphic as Saving Private Ryan, some viewers may wish to turn their heads at several points in the film. Overall, I would commend this film as one of the best mini-series ever made if not in the top 5 than surely in the top ten. The adaption from the late Stephen Ambroses book of the same name is very well done and follows his writings bery well. The dialogue is believable and well acted and well scripted.

For those persons who have made the comment that Mel Gibson has committed career suicide by making this film, I think they are wrong. This film is one of those films that one is reluctant to say that you enjoyed it. This is a masterfully done recreation of the last 12 hours of Christ's life and while the movie is extremely uncomfortable and painful to watch it is very well done and it probably more accurately portrays the Passion of Christ better than any film that has ever tackled the subject matter previously. Let there be no mistake about it, this film is extremely violent and graphic in it's presentation. But for today's audiences who crave realism and watch episodes of Law and Order and CSI, the very graphic representation of the humiliation and tortuous abuse inflicted on Jesus is important to the whole context of what Jesus went through for the rest of us who are Christians. This film left me in shock and I was exhausted and in virtual pain realizing how horrible people can be to one another, let alone that Jesus was during his time one of the most respected and at the same time hated personalities in civilization. For those who feel that this film will spark anti-semitism I think that you really need to reexamine the scriptures because the subject that is addressed about the Jews themselves hating Jesus is no secret and the things that he suffered not only at the hands of the Romans, but at the hands of his own people are accurate and are well documented in the bible. This information is nothing new and if someone decides to take out their anger against anyone living, they really need to take a breath and realize that what happened in this film took place over two thousand years ago. None of the people who commited these heinous crimes are living and should not be punished for the sins of those who lived back during the lifetime of Jesus. Mel Gibson is a genius who has an eye for cinematography and displayed a sense of pure mastery behind the camera. He is as good of a director as any that currently are employed in Hollywood and I hope that he can continue to run a career where he is both behind and in front of the camera. One scene in particular which I strongly suggest you to watch for is when Jesus actually dies on the cross, you see a tear from God descending from the heavens, and the camera is from the tears point of view as it travels earthward. This scene was pure cinematic magic and struck me as the work of absolute genius. For those persons who have contemplated taking their children to the film, please don't, at least until they are at least in their teens as this film is bound to induce nightmares in the younger kids and this movie is not something that they are ready to experience. I would sum up my rating of this film with one word, AWESOME. At least for me it was a faith reaffirming experience and it is one that I will carry with me for the rest of my life.

I watched Field of Dreams last night for what has become an annual tradition for me as spring training begins for Major League Baseball. I wore out my original VHS copy of the movie and needed to upgrade to a more durable DVD as it is one of the few movies I own that I could watch over and over. Field of Dreams to me is a reaffirmation of what is special not only about movies and how once in awhile a film comes along that really can reach the heart and touch so many people, but it also is a glimpse into what makes baseball arguably the most loved of all American sports. In the days of players salaries getting way out of control and major league owners trading for players to expand their rosters such as the recent New York Yankees trade for Alex Rodriguez, Field of Dreams for two hours sets aside all the aspects of money and focuses on the heart of baseball, and more so, focuses on the love of the game and how it touches so many people in so many different ways. Unless you absolutely hate the game itself and there are those who do, Field of Dreams will have something for anyone who cherishes the spring, when boys and girls across the country lace up their cleats and oil their gloves for the new season. Past losses and mistakes are gone, memories of our own childhoods are rekindled. The smell of a freshly cut field, the sound of the crack of the bat. All these things are reminded to the viewer of a film that has been voted one of the ten best sports films of all time. Even though the actual sport is depicted for only a few brief moments in the film, this movie is a baseball film through and through. But it is more so a film for the baseball fan, for those of us who can list the names of the players in the lineups from days gone past. This film is an indication that we can correct our own mistakes in our own past and hopefully find redemption in our lives. Ray Liotta and James Earl Jones both give very heartfelt and poignant speeches in the film reminding us of what the game does for the fan and even players who receive enormous amounts of money to play a game that they would probably play for free were there not salaries involved. This film is uplifting and moving and it reminds us of where we as Americans came from and how so many things in America have changed, but the game of baseball for all the innovations such as polyester uniforms and nighttime lights, baseball has changed little throughout its over 100 year lifetime. Yes, baseball in today's world is big business, but baseball was big business at the beginning of the century too, but when our favorite players hit the field and take their positions, or step up to the plate and knock the dirt off their cleats and take a few practice swings, it is still a game which is what Field of Dreams does a remarkable job in portraying. The acting in this movie is superb and natural, the characters are convincing and even though I have seen this movie at least three dozen times, I still get chills and am moved to tears at several points in the film. If there is ever a film that is destined to be a classic for years to come, Field of Dreams would definitely be one of them.

I have been a huge fan of this film, probably more so than any other movie and each and every time I watch it I am drawn more and more into it. My family made a pilgrimage to the field last summer in Dyersville and if there are any persons out there who have never gone but are devotees like I am, it is absolutely necessary to make the journey. Field of Dreams is as enlightened of a screenplay as the original novel was by WP Kinsella. I only hope that there is the possibility of other great films to come where even 16 years after its release it still holds the same magic and can still cause me to get tears in my eyes as watch the last dramatic scene.

How can one describe the anxiety and agony a true fan of the LOTR movies goes through awaiting another installment of the trilogy arriving in theaters? This being the final installment my waiting was no less an agonizing experience this time around but in some ways worse being concerned as a loyal reader of the books that the directors get the ending correct and not take short-cuts Peter Jackson and crew have been exceptional in being faithful and honorable to the original Tolkien texts and have been almost fanatically religious about insuring that the heart and soul of the stories remain intact when being transferred to celluloid. Is it possible that WETA, Wingnut Films and Peter Jackson finally get their just rewards by being not only nominated but awarded the prestigious Academy Awards that they deserved and were cheated out of in the prior two years? Or will the Academy do as it has done the past several years in awarding a politically correct actor and actress for performances which were not clearly the best for the year, or awarding films as best picture when they were not really the finest achievement in motion picture arts?

The Return of the King is a majestic film on an epic scale which not only preserves the integrity of the trilogy to its conclusion, but also elevates the honor and pageantry of a more formal time. Granted, the events of this movie and the prior two films are fiction, but the historical references used in the creation of the worlds in the film are remarkable in the detail and what must be honestly said a love of the subject matter and stories themselves.

Throughout the film we are treated with incredible scenic vistas and remarkably staged battle scenes using hundreds of costumed warriors battling on the screen. While interspersed with the action, the primary adventure concerning the two Hobbits Sam and Frodo making their way to the cracks of doom truly exhibits the feelings of pain and despair they experience. I was awed and amazed at how the CGI effects of Gollums animation had improved in the year since the Two Towers had been released. I didn't think it was possible to improve on what was displayed on the screen in the last film only to be shocked and amazed to see a Gollum who was not only more detailed and realistic, but capable of far more "human" expression that most actors you see in films these days. Acting in this film is as usual superior and well done, nowhere in the film are you as the viewer left feeling that the movie went on without you.

The only negative things I can say about the movie are with the choice of camera angles and panoramic panning of the camera in many shots. I unfortunately was forced to sit towards the front of the theater near the screen the day after the film was released and I and my fiancee were both left feeling dizzy and nauseous many times during the film to the point where we had to shut our eyes. I am not sure how much of this is the filmmakers fault or how much fault theater owners have for trying to squeeze in every possible seat for showings not allowing for some healthy distance between the viewers and the screen, but I digress. This is not a film for young children, nor is this a film that will appeal to persons with little imagination. I have seen some reviews of the three films in the past really ripping on them and have to wonder if 90% of the people who see a film think it is worth rating one of the greatest films of all time, who it right and who is wrong? This movie IS one of the best films ever made, it IS going to survive for future generations as an example of what EXCELLENT filmmaking is all about, and it is destined to become a classic in it's own right, whether it wins best picture or not.

Even as a fan and avid reader of the novels knowing how the story was going to end I was really amazed at the emotional scenes and how much depth the filmmakers and actors were able to convey. This film is a true masterpiece!

There are certain names that have become almost a part of the English language which most of us have heard of, but few rarely know the story behind the origin of the name. Seabiscuit is one of them, along with names like the Gipper Knute Rockne, The Bronx Bombers, Murderers Row, Man-o-War, Dan Patch. All of these names are associated with legends in their own respective sports. I can remember as a kid growing up in the seventies hearing the name Seabiscuit but never knowing who or what it was. This movie not only presents who Seabiscuit was, but it shows us a time capsule of the way things were in pre world war II America. Presented in a docu-drama style nararated by David Mccullough who is a noted historian in his own right and is also a very recognizable voice over talent for historical dramas, Seabiscuit presents a world which few surviving Americans can remember, a world where the automobile was a novelty and locomotives were the main mode of cross-country transportation, not airplanes. A world where entire families were glued to the radio in the living room listening to the nightly news or the latest new commercial radio show. A world that was still struggling to make it's way out of the depression. This was the world into which the famous racehorse Seabiscuit was born into. This was the time when horseracing was almost as popular as baseball when baseball was the number one spectator sport in America. The movie Seabiscuit does a remarkable job of painting a beautiful picture of an otherwise dark time in America, sometimes using glossy colors to show a gentler America than what the history books show, it does use documentary photographs throughout the movie to aid in dating the times when the events of the movie were occurring. Tobey Maguire puts in a remarkable performance as the down on his luck feisty and angry too-tall horse-jockey Red Pollard, and yes, even with red hair, Tobey Maguire still looks like your every day next door neighbor. Jeff Bridges plays the sentimental haunted owner of Seabiscuit Mr. Howard. Mr Howard is sentimental and haunted as a result of the death of his only son and the resulting dissolution of his marriage. Chris Cooper again shows why he is one of Hollywoods best supporting actors putting in a Horse-whispereresque performance as the too old Horse trainer who sees beauty in the otherwise underwhelming Seabiscuit and sees the heart of a champion inside the horse just waiting for someone to coax it out. These three men help shape the unlikely championship career of a horse that everyone said was lazy, too small, rebellious and angry. The movie uses period imagery that is very convincing, and while there are a couple of somewhat fake looking scenes with Tobey Maguire seated in the saddle of Seabiscuit overall, it does not detract from a well done movie. As the movie ended I was left with a tear in my eye and a warm feeling in my heart. Done in the tradition of movies like Rudy and Field of Dreams, this movie is sure to go down as a family classic to be loved for many years, and to be watched over and over again. This is a movie that young and old alike will enjoy and I would recommend it to anyone.

Now, granted this movie is not about upstanding members of society, and I will also grant that this movie is rated R, but I feel that the extent of the use of profanity in this movie was over the top. If I had the forethought to begin a stroke tally for the number of times that the "F" word was used in this movie, it would literally number at least seventy five or more times at least, not to mention other choice lingual utterances. I'm not a prude and I understand that the characters are supposed to be crude and vulgar, but I think that sometimes the use of language in movies is a little bit of overkill. Okay, enough of my soapbox about vulgarity in film, Bad Santa while contaning many instances of profanity also contains references to unusual sexual activities and some bodily functions. This is not a movie for the faint of heart or for someone who is looking for a movie that is relaxing to watch. This is a funny movie, there are many times where the humor comes from some very unexpected places. Believe it or not even for my diatribe above, this movie does ultimately develop a heart and there is a very touching scene towards the end of the picture where the main character experiences a life changing epiphany and changes the whole direction of the story.

All in all this movie would be one that had my friends not taken me to see it, I would have probably waited for this to be released on video. Any parent who brings their children to see this movie ought to have their head examined or possibly be investigated for child abuse as this movie is NOT for kids, at least under the age of 17 years old. I can see no reason whatsoever that a child should be seeing this movie at all.

I have to admit, I was skeptical and anxious to see Pierce Brosnan in a serious dramatic role. His characters are usually very debonair and have an air of superiority about them that makes him seem to be better than the rest of us. I was pleasantly surprised seeing his true to life performance as Desmond Doyle an unemployed father of two boys and a girl named Evelyn. Evelyn is the eldest of the three children and has a special bond with her father which is the basis of the whole movie. Pierce Brosnan plays his character with a delicacy and dedication in which you the viewer completely forget him as Pierce Brosnan and start to really believe that this is a documentary type movie and not a Hollywood production. As Pierce Brosnan is Irish by birth it is not surprising how well he can pull off a moderate Irish accent but it is still a bit shocking considering how English he usually seems when he is seen on-screen. Stephen Rea, Alan Bates, Aidan Quinn and Juliana Margulies round out the rest of the adult cast and all put in performances that are worthy of their talents. Juliana Margulies being an American born actress is able to portray an Irish woman with accent very convincingly. This movie is without a doubt one of the better films of 2002, it is unfortunate that it was not widely known as a potential Oscar favorite.

Okay folks, I have seen all of the Pixar movies that have been produced for the Walt Disney Studios and I am confused. I remember the hullabaloo that Disney had created when Pixar wanted prominent billing for it's studios as well as a larger share of the profits from the Pixar animated features it produces for said Disney company. Is Disney nuts for actually getting upset? Pixar has made some of the most financially successful movies for Disney over the last 10 years and Disney is complaining because Pixar wants more visibility and more of the money from the movies they create?

Okay enough of the commentary. Finding Nemo was a visually stunning, well written, well cast movie in which you forget you are watching a fully CGI motion picture. The character movements were completely believable and the color treatment and lighting given to the undersea environments were truly unbelievable. Pixar has truly defined the art of CGI animation and they are on a par with ILM and WETA for their talents in computer animation. I read somewhere in a review for this movie that Pixar didn't take the craft to a new level in the making of this movie. I would disagree completely. The realistic underwater environments created in this motion picture are as good as any underwater adventure ever produced by Cousteau and company during the voayges of the Calypso back in the 60's and 70's. The murkiness of being underwater with these characters is I think Pixars greatest accomplishment. Watching this movie really makes you feel like you are underwater in the ocean. The CGI is so good in this movie that you don't realize it is even there. Anyone that downplays this movie is just looking at a reason to nit pick on Disney.

I received this movie as a result of a buy 2 get one free offer at a local video store. I have two kids and I figured a Disney cartoon on DVD is always a good buy. I watched the movie recently with my children and was blown away by some of the best computer generated animation I have ever seen blended with breathtaking and beautiful hand painted and hand drawn animation. I have read other reviews drawing attention to some minor inconsistencies such as no oxygen in space amongst other things and I honestly did not feel that those questions in the back of my mind detracted me from enjoying a very nice modern remake of a classic adventure story. Granted there were quite a few departures from the original Robert Louis Stevenson story, but as the producers themselves stated in the special features section of the DVD, they didn't want to remake the same old story yet again just like many other versions of the story have been translated into film. This is one of the better Disney films to come out of the studio in ten years, probably not on par with Lion King and Beaty and the Beast but a good movie nonetheless. It is a shame that it did not do better in the theater. I highly recommend going to see this film.

After deciding to not see this movie in theaters due to several years of Disney summer release disappointments, I now feel bad that I did make the decision to rent the DVD when it came out because it truly is more in line with the quality animated films Disney used to make. Granted, a movie about a six limbed alien with bad manners did seem to be a pretty odd subject matter, I can honestly say that Disney hit a home run and left me "all shook up" Okay okay so I used an Elvis pun, but in reality this film used many elvis songs in its soundtrack which was very well utilized.

Setting the film in Hawaii with the beautiful scenery and almost magical atmosphere left me with a feeling that I was really in our 50th state. The opening sequence containing a very artistically done rendition of a Hawaiian hula dance left me spellbound and wanting to see more of this unusual animation style. My children (9-5) both enjoyed this film equally as much as I did and since we bought the DVD we have watched it many times.

I have been reading some of the comments that some viewers have written about Chicago and I really am wondering if they saw the same movie I have seen. I have never seen the play itself which the movie is based on nor have I seen the broadway musical. HOWEVER, I felt that Chicago was very well written and was very artistically portrayed on the screen. I read a review that both of the female leads were replaceable and could have been done by any number of different actresses. I disagree entirely, I felt the casting was very well done and deserves credit.

When the movie began I had some worries that maybe the positive reviews I had seen written were wrong. The movie starts out kind of slow and takes a good 15 to 20 minutes before it starts rolling, but from then on the movie picks up steam and continues to crescendo to the end. The musical numbers and choreography were well conceived and portrayed the mood of the moment well. Almost all of the main musical numbers were done in an almost dreamlike sequence where the storyline departed from reality into a kind of fantasy world for the characters. The movie develops a rhythm and flow of its own that builds sympathy and revulsion for the various characters in the story. I do not think that there was a single character that I didn't have mixed emotions about. Even the main characters had both good and bad qualities that left the audience trying to decide who was likeable and who was dislikeable. I think that this was the intent of not only the filmmakers, but also I would believe that this duplicity was written into the original play.

I found myself staying in the theater during the credits just so that I could see if the actors themselves sang their own parts. Renee Zellweger demonstrated another facet in her repertoire which is not only complimentary but surprising. Catherine Zeta Jones was brilliant and has a beautiful singing voice. And lets not forget Richard Gere... Richard Gere is not someone whom I would consider being a song and dance man, however his performance was nothing if not inspired. Queen Latifah has only one musical number of her own and it was very well done, however if there was only one detractor to the movie is that she only had the one musical number, I would have liked to see more of her.

All in all I wanted to dispell the few negative comments I have read about this movie and ask those people who felt that this movie was lacking that they seek treatment or at least a new pair of glasses because they definitely missed the boat when seeing this film and it is a shame. This movie garners much deserved praise and should perform well at Oscar time as much as I would like to see the Two Towers win best picture, I believe Chicago has the potential to give it a run for the money.

I was absolutely enthralled with the Two Towers, I don't think there are enough superlatives in the English language to express the pleasure and all out thrill I received from watching this movie unfold on the screen. Peter Jackson is absolutely brilliant with his making this movie a separate film with a completely different style of editing from the first installment of the series. I do however wish to make an editorial comment here regarding the Academy of Motion Picture sciences nominating the first film for practically every category imaginable and the film only coming away with a couple of statues. Listen up Oscar, this film is BY FAR the best Picture of the year, and Peter Jackson is a penultimate director and deserves credit for the incredible work that he has done making a movie that is not only pleasing to the fans of the work on which it is based, but also is very well crafted as a GOOD motion picture should be in this day and age.

I read last year that there were some people commenting about the film not being that good because it is basically a chase movie. REALLY? I mean get real people, of course it is, and anyone with half a brain who has actually READ the original masterpieces on which the films are based would have KNOWN that! This isn't Rocket science people! Tolkien I think is smiling down on Peter Jackson right now as he has done well for making a visually and artistically stunning movie.

For those who have Rank & Bass's interpretation of Hobbits and Dwarves and Gollum, throw everything out from your mind. Gollum most specifically is the most accurate and true form to Tolkiens description of not only his appearance but as to his genetic origins being closely related to Hobbits. It is his characterization by Andy Serkis along with the mystical Ent Treebeard played by John Rhys Davies which in my opinion makes this film as good as one who is a LOTR fan would hope for. Not only that, but the CG technology used to create these two characters is by far some of the best computer animation I have ever seen, and the realism that these characters posses is definitely the best live action characters since Jurassic Park. Brad Dourif's portrayal of Grima Wormtongue was also worthy of note as he is as snaky and evil in the book as he was in the movie.

All in all, this is a wonderful fast paced film. The editing was much more snappy than in the Fellowship of the ring. There are many more separate stories going on at the same time due to the Fellowship having parted at the end of the film and there are three separate tracks taking place simultaneously.

The only thing I felt was distracting was where I ended up sitting during the film, I was near the front of the theater and during some of the action scenes, due to how close I was to the screen, it was blurry at times and there was more activity going on than I could follow. This was not the filmmakers fault however, I was just too close to the screen to see everything happening at once.

I would caution those who would like to bring younger children to this movie as it is definitely more violent and scary than the first film and some parents may find themselves calming nightmares for several days after a younger child sees this movie.

Bravo Peter Jackson!

I went to see this movie with expectations of it being even better than the first film. Granted sequels are never as good as the original in most cases, but with this film coming under as much fan scrutiny as any film in history has, I would have expected the film to be better. It was very good, don't get me wrong, maybe some of the magic was taken away because I had read the book first unlike when I had seen the first one in which I had not read the book.

The acting was decent, but I had this recurring image of Richard Harris having died before the release of the film and I was thinking about that during much of the movie. Watching him onscreen he seemed feeble and ailing even during the movie and it left me wondering if maybe a different actor should have played him considering what ultimately happened.

Overall, I was somewhat disappointed with the film and I can only hope that since there will be a longer time until the third film is made that there will be ample time for the producers of the new film to improve on a series that is of quality but needs some more spicing up to improve on the original film which in and of itself was very entertaining.

I'll admit that when I saw the trailer for Ice Age in the theater, I thought it was extremely comical but it didn't spark my interest to go and see the movie. Some of this reluctance is due to my love of the CG animated film Shrek. But I wish now that I had seen this film on the big screen as it is a really magnificently done film, considering it was a first effort by Blue Sky Studios and Fox.

The acting was brilliant and very very believable. The animation was some of the best CG stuff that I have seen yet. The story was well written and contained a very good and solid plot that never left the audience feeling that the movie had bogged down. The movie contains many scenes which have double entendres and inuendos that are definitely geared for a mature audience but are so well disguised that the average young viewer is not going to pick up on them in the double meaning in which they were intended.

Two very emotional and touching moments occurred in the film that were much warmer than hardly any film I have seen live action or animated in a long time. All in all, I would have to say that this is one of the best films that I have seen come out in a long time.

In addition, since I saw the film for the first time on a DVD format, I would also have to comment on the content of the DVD. Absolutely breathtaking and in many ways as funy and entertaining as the film itself. There is even two animated short films on the DVD which in and of themselves are amazing with their fluid clean crisp CG graphics.

Congratulations to the animators, director, studio and producers for generating an instant classic.

I have seen many movies in the past year, some have been wonderful and some have been downright terrible. My Big Fat Greek Wedding has to be one of the best written and best acted comedies I think I have seen in a long time. While the concept of making a movie about weddings is not unique, I believe that those of us who either have gone through planning a wedding or have experiences with family having too much influence in our lives will relate to this movie better than other wedding movies.

This movie is about an ordinary rather plain looking thirty something unmarried woman who comes from a large extended Greek family. All Greek women are expected to go to Greek school, find a good Greek man, marry him and have lots of Greek babies according to the narrator who is also the main character in the movie. This simple premise is what sets us off in almost two hours of raucous humor centered around planning a wedding where a couple coming from completely different backgrounds has to deal with all the external pressures that happen when two people decide to go down the aisle together.

This movie has several very heartwarming and somewhat emotional scenes in it so dont expect it is just a funny movie. Acting in this movie on all characters was very well done and very believable. I thought however that the roles of the Grooms Mother and Father were rather flat and two dimensional. This movie reminded me quite a bit of Father of the Bride starring Steve Martin, except in this case, the writers for Monty Python obtained the script for final treatment. While the writers for Monty Python did not actually write this movie but was instead written by the leading lady, there were some moments where it appeared that the humor was drawn right out of a book of British comedy. All in all I felt that the whole movie had a British feel to it.

This movie will delight you and leave you with a smile on your face. While the audience in the theater was more of an adult composition, I do not remember any nudity or adult language in the entire picture which means this movie is one that the whole family can see together. I would wholeheartedly recommend this movie to anyone who would like a good laugh.