shahmatt

Cars 2 is a fun movie to watch. As we have all come to expect from Pixar the movie is visually stunning. The modeling of cities like London, Paris, Italy etc. are not only rich in detail but hilariously modified to fit in with the anthropomorphic Cars theme. Pixar's creation of this car world is highly intelligent and I was thoroughly amused.

The plot involves a lot of action, humor and generally good entertainment but adopts a more conventional mainstream action/mystery/adventure form. I suppose it has detracted a little from the usual Pixar method, which is to get the viewer emotionally engaged. The emotional engagement made Pixar's work special and Cars 2 is not really as special as Pixar's previous work.

But there is no doubt that Cars 2 is entertaining. Ratings are a relative scale, and the rating for Cars 2 is only low because we've come to expect so much from Pixar. Any let down therefore is a severe blow. This movie would have no doubt been rated higher had it perhaps been directed by, say for example, Mr. Michael Bay.

At the end of watching anything I ask myself, was I entertained? And the answer in this case was yes! Absolutely! I loved it!

Castle is the story of Rick Castle and Kate Beckett. Castle is a famous novelist and he's "hired" as a consultant in order to deal with murder cases. This develops into some real comedy and interesting chemistry between the lead characters, not to mention some interesting plot twists in later episodes. There's a hint of unbelievability to the show but not in a bad way. It's like a good mystery novel. In this way, Castle is different from typical crime shows like CSI, Bones etc. But I do think that this is part of the appeal. Perhaps I've got a little tired from all that forensics and science.

I must say that I've been starved of some Nathan Fillon. I thought he was brilliant in Firefly, a show that was also immensely entertaining to the audience, but underrated by the powers that be (Fox, I'm looking at you, shame on you). He is definitely a one-of-a-kind actor and he really carries this show with his wry humor and observations. I was hit by a wave of nostalgia with his familiar style. I want to see more. Much much more.

So far so good! Castle kicks off, not with a bang, but with steady assurance.

To Firefly fans I say watch out! Nathan Fillon is back. Coolness personified!

I first watched this movie around 12 years back on television. I was very young, and I could not recall the title. After many years of searching and forum postings with descriptions, I have finally rediscovered this movie through a suggestion made on the "City of Ember" forums on this site. My long search has come to an end, and I am glad.

I am sure it will be another long search before I can find a copy, but until then I will try to share what I remember of what makes this movie so good.

The story is based in a post apocalyptic world. The surface of the Earth is rendered unfit for life, and humans have lived underground in caverns for many hundreds of years. Life in the caverns is oppressive and is run by a dictatorship of sorts. The story revolves around a boy and a girl who are close to their grandmother and listen to her stories of life on the surface. She also tells them that there is a legend that when the lava river rises, (a river which gives them warmth and heat), it will be time to return to the surface. The river does rise but the people are not willing to move, believing that there is no surface to go to. Eventually it is the boy, girl, the grandmother and a drunk uncle who take the leap and leave the community, and find themselves racing the ever rising lava river to the surface. The journey to the surface is perilous through long abandoned tunnels, caverns, subways and even car parks with ancient cars in them.

All in all, I found the plot to be fascinating and absorbing. The animation and colors are less realistic but have a sort of arty feel. The sounds of the underground are beautifully rendered. I remember feeling at the time that a lot of care went into making this film.

If you can find it, this is a great movie for all the family to watch. 12 years later I still recall its impact, which is a big deal for a movie buff like me. I give it an 8 out of 10!

I was truly entertained. After watching Get Smart it seemed like years since I'd laughed heartily at a movie!

The humor was stupendous with Steve Carrel's wry observations and comments and some superb entertainment from the tech guys. Also, there were a few truly original scenes. In particular, I loved the dance scene, Steve Carrel is a man of iron (or perhaps it was good camera work). There were also elements of true beauty, romance and colour, such as the bike ride with Anna Hathaway and Steve Carrel along the Russian countryside. The action was plentiful too.

In short, it was a perfectly balanced movie, with the right shot of humor, originality, action and color. I can't understand why its only a 6.9 on IMDb. It deserves at least an 8 surely. I've given it a 10 to balance the scales! Here's to more from the comedic Stevel Carrel and the very beautiful Anne Hathaway!

I must admit I was a little skeptical going in to watch this movie, the main reason being, Dreamworks, in my opinion, has not produced a good movie since Shrek. By good movie I mean, a movie with a good story, heart, and humor. The Shrek sequels and other movies from the studio have all been corny and shallow, utilizing big name voices but with little in the manner of storyline and heart. Pixar, did exactly the opposite. Avoiding big names as much as they could except for where they felt it was necessary to help the storyline. Pixar put movie first, then voice actors. Dreamworks the reverse. And look at which company does better. Pixar of course!

A good friend told me that Kung Fu Panda was 'friggin Awesome', so I decided to take a chance. The trailers looked interesting. A little different from Dreamworks' typical approach of touting voices and funny scenes. Kung Fu Panda does have its fair share of voices, with Angelina Jolie, Lucy Liu, and Dustin Hoffman. But the trailers did not focus on the voices at all, which led me to believe that this might be something new.

So it started. I was mesmerized by the stylized opening sequence. I'm sure many an animator would take note of the work. It left me intrigued and interested. It also got me to smile and set me up for what was to come. The opening sequence is important. Make sure you don't get late and miss it.

The movie then switches into the normal style of 3D animation that we have become so familiar with in recent years. Kung Fu Panda has a lot of talking animals in it, and no humans at all. Jack Black plays Po, the Panda, who works in a noodle shop assisting his father (a goose?). He dreams of learning Kung Fu, and is a big fan of the fearsome five, a group of five animals who are experts within their animal talents. He is a true fan boy, and owns action figures of each of them. The story unfolds in a way that is not too unexpected. Po, our unlikely lovable hero, has to eventually defeat Tai Lung, and save everyone.

Interestingly, I found that the style of story had some similarities to Chinese folklore. The storyline intentionally encompasses Chinese culture and tradition to a degree. A rare thing to behold. I loved the effort.

Kung Fu Panda will appeal to all ages. For the young, the motivational message that comes towards the end. And for the older, an enchanting work of great entertainment. I was entertained.

Kung Fu Panda is a good movie, and is reminiscent of the days when Dreamworks came up with Shrek. Now go see it and enjoy yourself!

At the time of writing this comment, IMDb ranks the Shawshank Redemption as No. 2 in top 250 best movies of all time. Let me tell you that this is no exaggeration and no small feat given IMDb's strict rating criteria. Shawshank is indeed, up there amongst the best, and if you haven't seen it yet, you should make it a point to watch it, at least once sometime in your life. For it is an astonishing tale, of endurance, courage, life, and perspective, combined with a stunning score that flows so closely with the highs and lows of emotion that it could make grown men cry. No words can explain how good Shawshank really is, but let the sheer volume of good user reviews made by devotees in this website be proof enough of its greatness.

There's something wrong with Transformers. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I'll try my best to explain how I felt as the movie went from start to finish, and perhaps you, the reader out there, can figure out what I mean.

The movie started off well enough, lots of mystery and suspense, the character development of the many heroes were all right. Some relatively funny lines. So far so good.

Now comes the body. A bit confusing. What is the focus here? We are introduced to good guys, who behave so much like bad guys you immediately assume villain! villain! whack the SOB! Then the finale. A very long drawn out action sequence, overwhelming the senses and numbing them. So much destruction and carnage goes on that it is impossible that our heroes continue to stand without even a scratch on them. I kept watching and waiting. Look, there's an entire building made of concrete destroyed by a transformer, our hero is in its midst, surely a splinter would pierce his foot, surely he'd get whacked on the head and go unconscious, or at least get stunned. But no, he still has smooth skin, its a miracle. This happens over and over and over again, until I grew quite tired of it.

I am also amused by the sudden dependence on this unlikely hero. His task could have easily been carried out, with much greater efficiency, by a transformer. All the while I thought, plot hole, BIG plot hole.

Many of the characters are very unconvincing. We have senior army personnel acting like children.

Music direction was very VERY poor. Too many times, epic-like music was played at relatively unimportant points. You immediately assume something significant is about to happen, but you end up disappointed.

If you are a devoted Transformers fan, please do go for this movie. The transformers are beautifully rendered and remind me so much of the cartoon when I was a kid. This movie will please fans. If, on the other hand, you want to be entertained by a 'good' action movie, you might be disappointed. I know I was.

There have been a lot of mixed reviews about this film. Some have said that Daniel Craig could be likened with Sean Connery, with his cold edged approach. That's perhaps true, to an extent. Daniel Craig does exhibit a certain coldness, and he does have the charisma, but he did not show the quick wit Connery became known for. I disagree with Daniel Craig as the new Bond, and I disagree with the new style they've made for the Bond franchise.

Casino Royale is an old fashioned movie. It could have been filmed in the 60's or 70's as there was hardly anything modern about it. A woeful sprinkling of gadgets, and computers, which I think was done deliberately, in order to focus the movie on the characters, rather than the environment. This might have worked if Daniel Craig was a better actor, but he's not. He shows almost no emotion throughout the entire movie, almost as if his face was incapable of changing into a genuine smile. Perhaps he was asked to act that way, if so, it was a mistake. Bond was never really supposed to be emotionless, cold perhaps, but he did smile, and act human, which is why he was such a great spy: he acted natural. Daniel Craig could have been a robot, and his manner screamed I'm up to no good. And added by the fact that whatever he said was more of a mumble than actual words, it was dreadful that women sort of gravitated towards him. Correct me if i'm wrong, but even though Bond is supposed to be good looking, didn't personality do something to attract those stunning bond girls? Craig doesn't have much in terms of dialog either, I suppose 90% of what he said could be found in IMDb's movie quotes. In short, the new Bond lacks character, wit, and charm. To his credit, he has the build, and looks silly when running (which was something I found to console myself by as the movie progressed).

I disagree with the style of the movie. Why did the Bond franchise have to go back in time? I mean, this is the 21st century, we could afford to see a few more gadgets in the Bond franchise. Brosnan's lot was chockful of delicious gadgets that were entertaining and interesting, and breached into the modern era. Why couldn't this Bond have some of that? This backward thinking is boring. I also noticed that the chase scenes were far too long. The first one was interesting, the chap running away looked almost inhuman with his escape tactics. All right, that was fun, move on to something else that's interesting, but no, they came up with another chase sequence, and another later on, which dragged painfully. It wasn't just the action, even the romance was overly extended, and with a minimum of conversation too, it was too quiet. Eva Green is gorgeous, but she's on display so much that it becomes tiresome, and by the end of it I wished she would just go away. The ending was somewhat cliché as well. You'll see, the penultimate scene brings so much peace and serenity that had absolutely NO business belonging in a Bond movie. You knew about the impending disaster, you could feel it coming, it was boring.

When I watch a Bond movie, I expect to be entertained in some way. Bond, obviously, has to carry most of the burden by exhibiting something about a special man. Charm?, wit? (NIL), dialogue (very little). Good story? (Possibly, but still underdeveloped). Gadgets? (forget it), Humor (NIL). A future for a new Bond? I hope not.

Casino Royale is empty, of everything. Go watch it if you have to know what Bond should NOT have become.

When I walked into the cinema to watch V for Vendetta I wasn't sure exactly what to expect. The trailer was rather vague, and the posters kept pushing forth the words "from the directors of the Matrix". Anyway, I took the chance, spent the 8.50 to check it out, and that was the best 8.50 i've spent on a movie in a long long while.

From the word 'go' the movie grips you with its tone and lighting. Dark corridors and stylish camera work. Enter 'V' (Hugo Weaving), with his crisp language and eloquent introduction full of V's in it, and you are gripped by his charisma and manner. Hugo Weavings pulls off a marvelous feat with bringing V to life, especially since V is totally masked with an expressionless face throughout. We relate to him, we sympathize with him, and we wonder about him. A wonderful job. He deserves an Oscar for the effort.

Along with Natalie Portman (whose English accent is sometimes a bit funny, but worked nevertheless), V attempts revolution against a government not unlike what is portrayed in George Orwell's famous novel '1984'. We follow through his plan, the ups and downs, and his hope for a future. A classical example of a true revolutionary seeking transparency and justice.

Aside from the fact that V for Vendetta is a great movie having the usual features of good movies in abundance, viz: excellent acting, great story, stylish presentation, perfect ending, I think the point it brings across is far more valuable to our very complacent modern society than the movie itself. I highly recommend it 10/10.

In today's world, men argue over whether stem cell research is ethical, and a fair population i'm sure are supportive of the idea, or else it wouldn't even reach the news. In the same way, human cloning is a concept scientists seem to play around with for longer periods of time than I would say I'm comfortable with.

Someday stem cell research will be used to grow human organs, and human clones will indeed populate the earth. These ideas will be made possible by the people in power, who as we see right now, can't draw the line between what is ethical and what is not.

Given the way the modern world works right now, its not far fetched to imagine that the concept behind 'The Island' could one day be a reality.

My vote: 9/10...for realism, entertainment, and making me think..Watch it....

I wouldn't consider Underworld: Evolution to be a smart movie. It had a storyline that wasn't too complex, but was made to seem smart, with the movie's dark connotations and Gothic looks. The Underworld series deviates from the mainstream thought of what vampiric behaviour ought to be. This could be a pro or a con, depending on the individual, but being more of a fan of the original style, I would have preferred some more sword play.

Having criticized this show for its intelligence level, less than traditional approach to vampires and werewolves, and unnecessary gore, I will say that to its benefit, its a damn good movie to watch after a tough day on the job.

The movie was a disappointment. I understand that the book is far too long to incorporate into a movie but, I hoped that what little they picked out from the book they could have tried getting it right. The headmaster Dumbledore was completely out of character behaving more like a angry old man rather than a calm and wise old wizard. Voldermort turned out to be a joke with his rock singer like antics. They got the 'slit-like' noses, and the 'high pitched' voice though. But he looked anything like the most evil wizard of all. Who picked these guys to act anyway? As for the plot, there were some agonizing moments in the movie such as the quidditch games which started, and then never ended. Sort of a clear message to the viewers saying: "Sorry folks we've got to finish up this movie and we can't put in everything. Moving on to other things in brief....". Well I'm sorry, but the show length was 157 mins long. That's still less than 3 hours, and if you include a scene at LEAST complete it. Pretty bad work Mr. Director.

Some of the major characters were left out. Such as Molly Weasley and the House Elf (whatziznameagain?). Time wasn't an excuse.... bad job...really bad job...

The underwater scenery was good, and so was the dragon chase (but it was highly exaggerated) AND.. a NEEDLESS waste of that precious commodity, time...

Harry Potter book fans will be disappointed...I think the movies are targeting the fans who haven't read the book. How disgusting.

I've always been rather skeptical about the Peter Pan fable. Peter Pan isn't really a children's story. It's downright horrifying. The original tale talks of a boy, living in a world of his own, never being able to grow up. A boy who went to Neverland so long ago that he can't remember who his parents were. And, in his innocence, drags other children along with him. I imagine how their parents must feel, and I always think, what a tragedy, and what an excuse for happiness? Anyway, Finding Neverland comes packaged with some stellar acting performances by Depp and Winslet, and the children were spot on. But I am at a loss in trying to classify this movie. Does it talk about hope? about the power of imagination? about love? It doesn't seem to have a focus. Just a story that's nowhere really in the end...but that's just my opinion....Do have a look and form your opinion about it....A truly unusual film

Titan A.E is a story set in a post-earth era (hence the A.E: after earth, which i thought was a nice touch). Its about the son of a scientist who is thrust upon him the quest of finding the Titan, the greatest ship ever built, and is humanity's last chance.

The movie begins with an awesome scene of the evacuation of earth, and caught me nicely off guard with some great 3D rendering of the Titan (when launched), and the escape ships. The imagination that went into some scenes in the movie, especially the cruising alongside the wake angels, and the ice rinks were fantastic. And the plot, though a bit unrealistic in terms of modern science, was thoroughly refreshing in concept. And its got just the right balance of action to move it quickly from a kids film to a good sci-fi show for slightly older audiences.

Titan A.E is a great film. It has a story that's original and neatly executed. It brought about some great 3D rendering in a time where animation was primarily 2D. Its got good character development with a nice twist in the middle. And its also got a fine soundtrack, which I love to listen to.

Go watch this movie. You will not be disappointed.

I loved this movie for its originality, style, atmosphere, feel good ending, humour...well...and a whole lot more other stuff. I don't care if it wasn't very realistic. I think realism is a let down. When I go to the movies I wanna see something that makes me feel good and inspired maybe. Movies are entertainment aren't they? Home Alone is an ENTERTAINING movie. And in this time where family breakups and divorces are rampant, this movie is a refreshing look on what families are all about, and its importance (though it was made more than a decade ago).

Because this kind of 'feel good' movie is so rare, I rate it 9/10.

The movie was really funny. Some of the jokes were hilarious. The concept was innovative and original. Well acted out by Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore (In fact, it was the best piece of acting I've seen by Sandler yet. Apparently he has talent). Barrymore was as usual superb. The only part I didn't like about the movie was that it ended on a slightly sad tone. It was a 'feel good' movie.. and yet not a 'feel good' movie... I don't like it when they mix up emotions that way.

Anyway, a great show. Recommended for all. Rating (7/10)



.

I was just wondering why people think this movie is a comedy. I thought it was scary, sad, and incredibly compelling. Reminded me of the Matrix, where the people really didn't know that the real world is out there.

I think that the most terrifying thing would be if this concept was true. That the world is a stage and we are its actors. If it was true how would we know? Are we really just a part of a grand tv show to some superior being? Don't certain religions teach something like that?

This movie gets an 8/10 because it got me thinking. It made me see that life is just a bloody play act anyway. We act everything anyway don't we? We go to work.. and Act there....We go home to our families... and Act there.... We say our prayers...and Act again ... is nothing Real? Even Love... doesn't it turn into an act after a while?!?!?

Darn it folks! I'm off to find myself some reality...I wish all actors a Good Afternoon, Good Evening and a Good Night!!!

First of all, just a small correction to a comment made by someone earlier. Cinderella was called that because she used to play with the cinders in the fire. Her real name was not mentioned in the fairy tale so it could have very well been 'Danielle'.

Anyway! good reproduction of the fairy tale. Great acting! Superb costume work. Awesome and realistic atmosphere with no hints of rock music, as was heard in 'a knight's tale'. The characters were well done: The King looked really like a king, the Queen looked like a queen, the stepmother like the stepmother in the story and Cinderella looked like..well.. "Cinderella". Imagining them that way was quite easy.

Anyway! the bottom line is that though the movie is merely a fairy tale, it is worth watching. The dialogue is mot juste, and some of the scenes are very well done and not to be missed. Look out for the part where the dance begins at the ball. The coordinated dancing in a circle at the center of the dance floor is quite nice to see.

Overall Score: 8/10

-Spoilers-

The thing that puzzled me most was the fact that one of the step sisters was actually one of the good guys. I thought that both were supposed to be rotten. Still, she was cute and it wasn't the perfect match towards the fairy tale or else there would have been a fairy godmother popping up... and that would have made it a fantasy movie. Another thing that got me thinking was the fact that the part in the fairy tale where the godmother's spell lasted till 12 midnight was not included at all. I thought they could have brought that element in somewhere making the Grim brothers include it in the tale. Pity about that.

This is definitely not only meant for kids. Adults can watch it too and enjoy it as well.

I particularly liked the soundtrack. All of a sudden this mystical Inca type music came along which completely got hold of me. I must get hold of it from somewhere.

Anybody who watches Back to the Future must see all three movies at once. Or at least within a short timespan. Watching Back to the future II without knowing how the story began is disastrous and a waste of a good movie. So some advice to those who haven't seen this movie yet: DON'T WATCH TILL YOU'VE SEEN PART I.

Anyway, from a purely critical point of view this movie did tend to be a shade bit tedious. But I think that this was somewhat of a plus point because when you are bored you can sort out things in your head. And the concept did need some sorting out.

I guess that's all. Keep in mind that this film was released in 1989. So things are definitely weird when looking at the future from that point in time. It's rather funny really.

I think a lot of people didn't like this movie because they simply didn't watch it in the right light. I mean, its 2003 and this is a movie that's set in the 60's. I believe the IDEA behind this show was simply to bring back those memories, the acting styles and the ancient filming techniques (which was obvious at the end when both actors were hanging from a ladder that was on a helicopter) . I liked this movie. The attempt at bringing back those golden years was superb and I appreciate the concept. I also believe that the outrageous attempts at performing certain acts were deliberately done, in order to depict the ironic way ppl acted at that time.... Awesome!!

I don't think anyone should judge this movie by modern standars as in...bad acting, poor visual effects etc, because these were simply what made the movie original, and what it is.... Great...

as always...Renee Zellweger..looked FIIIINEEE ..XX to her.. :-D

I've gone through several of these comments and seriously, some of those complaints are just ridiculous. I mean, Yes the show acting wasn't the best and Yes the car stunts do show some obvious errors. Hell I once recorded the show in a video tape and saw a guy sneaking around within the car when it was supposed to be empty. Big boo boo there. I replayed it and showed it to all my friends. And Yes... the truck Did seem a bit small for the car and everyone else in it.. to move around. But you know, those shows entertained us to no end. We didn't give a damn abt special effects at that age.. we didn't care abt the mistakes they made as long as they weren't so glaring. The storyline was good, the stunts were fun to watch, the dialogue witty, and frankly this was a show my entire family ran to the tv to watch on friday nights and we didn't miss it unless the sky was raining comets :-p... bottom line, by being too judgemental abt the show, exploring its scientific aspects just spoils the thing. Since when did entertainment require you to Think? Knight Rider was a typical example of what real quality was about and the 80's had the best of all tv shows. Its a pity that modern shows come up with so many special effects, it doesn't get entertaining any more. the new Team Knight Rider is absolutely dreadful. Damn them for spoiling the original image. If Anybody wants to bring KR back, they shouldn't. It was a good show, but bringing it back will spoil what a lot of ppl already remember about the original Knight Rider.

I liked this movie. I rated it a 9.. (quite a lot what?) .. i mean.. it doesn't go all the way up there with super movies like the Shawshank redemption or the usual suspects and stuff... this was a movie made for a different sort of audience.. .the romantics of course.

If your not a romantic, forget it... go watch something else.. it would probably be more useful. I AM a romantic however, and I do watch a decent amount of romantic movies to keep the fire burning... and out of that lot of romantic movies, this one rates pretty highly. Nice plot, the destiny and chance thing, the sort of thing a TRUE romantic would dream about. the cast did well.... i didn't want the movie to end up with a stupid wedding and stuff... it needed to end quietly, and it did.. Loved that...!! by the way... Kate Beckinsale is one Lovely female... !!! I'd fall for her any day.. (even on screen) hehe...