Abusimble1

I reside in USA and have seen the commercial for this film and it is utterly contemptible. The entire premise for this movie is that morality should be suspended by the viewer to indulge in gross misbehaviour. As a Muslim, I entreat other Muslims to shun this movie and reproach it with your brethren for the egregious conduct it promotes the audience to imagine.

In any civilised society this film would be banned. It would not even be allowed to be made. Clearly any link we have with USA is severed when the latter promotes this level of vulgarity. To be void of all sacrosanctness and normalcy is the goal of American culture now.

This nonsense is not Sherlock Holmes. It's a disgrace to past Sherlock Holmes' movies to have this junk bear the title of the greatest detective in the world. The main problem with this film is the same that affects the newest Batman movies and the newest Star Trek movie. In all 3, the plot is being "cut out", literally. Watching these movies it feels like the main point is the action scenes and the explosions. The plot is there merely in name and if not that, then certainly only as a second characteristic of the film. The primary reason for the film is to show aggression, with men getting into close proximity of other men's faces such as might happen on a military base. The rest of the movie is devoted to showing quick spurts of action scenes that are very fast. Just as the plot is "cut out" and hence made to go faster, all the action is made to develop very quickly so that the audience doesn't get bored watching it come up. Once it does appear, the action occurs at blitz-speed and is shown from a gamut of angles to keep the viewer stimulated. It's highly abnormal and almost meant to induce a euphoric effect on the viewer, similar to what a drug might do.

Terrible film. Do not watch it!

I cannot believe that a movie is allowed to have such an obscene title, let alone be shown in theatres! In fact the title is the worst thing about this movie because everyone must be offended by it regardless of whether he sees the movie or not. I'm not quite sure what the makers of this movie intended to achieve with this movie, except to exploit se* for its own sake by appealing to 20 year olds who have all but lost the concept of normal marriages and commonsense relations between man and woman.

Most people are going to say that when children ask what this movie is about when seeing its trailer play or seeing the title in public, they can be told by their parents that its not for their age range. Thus according to them, the matter can be conveniently and efficiently closed and children can be guarded from obscene matter, while the adults can watch these and garner delight in light-hearted comedies.

But this is not about the children really. What of the adults? Should they be watching such movies to begin with? Light-hearted comedies have existed since time immemorial, from skits and parodies to satires and jocular plays in theatres. This film however, goes too far. It takes and uses a sacred act and treats it in a profligate, frivolous way, both desecrating and desensitizing the audience to it. This singular, sacred act which is the basis of this movie for eliciting laughter from the audience is too great to be trifled with, too great to be used in so cavalier a manner.

What follows is both a plea and is not hyperbole when I say the United States and Canada are culturally nothing but hedonistic dens, filled with masses that carry out the behavior of brothels, consuming themselves in a vat of carnal debauchery for the last 15 years. Save yourselves. Save your children. I urge all governments to ban this film immediately!!!

I cannot begin to convey the depth of chagrin one feels when reading the reviews about this movie. The film is being hailed as a masterpiece and the next great painting that hangs in The Louvre. America is a sick nation. Mentally. Spiritually. Culturally. And it's getting more ill as time goes by. The deterioration has been rapid. Due to the now rapid dissemination of information, the problem is that the rest of the world will follow.

I exhort, nay, I beseech all normal people and especially parents around the world to resist this malady that is seemingly omnipotent and omnipresent. I make this plea to you because the internet now allows export of this malady to all corners of the globe effortlessly. The malady is in the form of acculturation to deaden our senses to violence, feminism, devaluation of parents and debauchery, and this malady is what currently governs American thinking.

Resist in your minds the temptation to be overwhelmed by sheer numbers. Resist in your hearts the impulse of accepting these deleterious, inane movies, as real films, simply because they are being touted as being made by the United States.

This film is one thing only: Evil incarnate. I say it again, unequivocally and without hesitation. This movie is evil. And I urge all governments to ban it forthwith! "There is nothing truly good or bad, only that we make it so." - A liar made this statement long ago when the world was still able to distinguish right and wrong. Perhaps that is why he never gave his name to this quote.

As Hollywood movies got infested with and are now replete with shallow plots, feminism and lewd dialogue, I was hoping that the Star Trek series would escape from the same demise. Star Trek: Nemesis was actually the foreboding film that this last bastion protecting normal television was being reconnoitered for a full-scale assault by greedy executives. Nemesis was an experiment for this movie. Hollywood believed that if Nemesis got a good reception it would pave the way for a new Star Trek. Nemesis didn't get a good reception from anyone liking the original Star Trek but it got great reviews from 15 year olds who like seeing big explosions on the screen.

"Star Trek (2009)" is not Star Trek. It is a passable action movie and that is all. In fact, most of the battle scenes are overdone and make the viewer think he's watching a crate of fireworks that has gone off. This alone means the movie cannot co-exist in a man's mind juxtaposed with the idea of Star Trek. Nor can it be considered a new type of Star Trek because that would require radically altering the original's definition.

Like "The Dark Knight", this movie seeks to replace vital elements which were present in every title before it. "The Dark Knight" was a misrepresentation of Batman and this movie is no different. Commonalities which are inherent to Star Trek and which are expected by the viewer so he can concentrate on the plot, are gone. The most conspicuous of these changes is in the characters.

James T. Kirk, a great strategist, is shown as an undisciplined law-breaking stuntman with nary a thought to his tactical skills being honed. There is one hackneyed scene with him looking at a mountain as if that is enough to make him into a great captain. 27 year old Spock is shown as a warrior Vulcan and far more aggressive than someone who would really understand logic, as expected to by his age. The others don't fare much better. Chekov acts a bumbling fool whose sole purpose is to provide comic relief for the tension between Kirk and Spock. Scotty and Ahura seem immature for their ages. Again, it must be emphasised that if these weren't supposed to be established Star Trek characters there would be no issues, other than the big one of sending a very bad message to schoolchildren.

There are two other major problems: The special effects and fights. Within the first 5 minutes there is a doomsday encounter between a starship and a Romulan warbird. The special effects for this sequence make the viewer feel as if he's watching a video game. The ships look drawn by hand and then water-colourised. Perhaps to portend this, "Bad Robot", the team responsible for much the computer imagery, had a distinctly shabby logo in the opening credits. The battle itself resembles the birthday party of an inebriated mob of psychotics. It's as if the director wanted to maximise the amount of action shown with little regard to plot. Here was a veritable fest of badly-lit destruction, the first of many. Phasers fire everywhere without seeming to acquire targets. Panels from the starship are blown off repeatedly by enemy fire. The ship is also shown very close up while all this is happening. It leads to the viewer feeling nauseous and numb. Rather than enriching the movie as carefully crafted battle scenes do, like in Star Trek II and Star Trek III, it makes a normal audience sensitised to further violence.

I shan't countenance the ruin of a great franchise. This film suffers from serious defects and it is a disgrace to have the Star Trek name associated with it.

Company is a film about a youngster Chandu who is a small time crook but has a lot of potential. The fellow he starts working for, Malik Bhai, runs a very powerful crime syndicate called Company in the Mumbai underworld. Malik recruits Chandu to help run a majority of his operations but a misunderstanding happens between them that erupts into an all out war. The result of this war is the destruction of their 'Company' organisation. Principal strengths of characters, rated on physical power, intelligence and influence:

Malik Bhai: 5 physical power, 9 intelligence, 9 influence. Chandu: 9 physical power, 8 intelligence, 6 influence.

You can see that both are quite evenly matched overall. This is why Company is such a good film! The music is very good and the only bad part is sometimes the sequences will suddenly cut to a different sequence that is supposed to come on a few seconds later. It's an editing style which makes one giddy. Company is an excellent movie overall!

Sad to see Glen A. Larson producing shows like this. The main issue is, what is with the Laura Roslin character? She seems like a man in a woman's body and viewers find this appealing? Also the entire show seems to be about interrogations and more interrogations. The plot seems banal and always week after week the same things are shown. Some conspiracy abounds and this is supposed to be the new great twist every episode. There is hardly any action and the drama is based entirely on having some sort of stale friction between the characters. I highly recommend watching Star Trek: The Next Generation or Star Trek: The Original series if one wants good science fiction episodes. This show isn't science fiction. It's junk.

I was expecting to see at least a semi-good movie but this film is not even up to par. This film gets a 1 rating from me because it tries to depict Batman and fails miserably at it. Even for an action movie if Batman hadn't been in it, it's not good. The plot is horrid and morbid, the amount of gore unhealthy and the fight sequences are badly done. Notable problems:

A. What is this rock theme music that's constant in the movie? It comes whenever a suspense scene starts and sounds like an annoying electric guitar. What is this doing in a Batman film? Also, the plot seems to be totally disconnected in between scenes. The entire movie is like one big mishmash of 10 different stories that occur in succession. It is also unrealistic many times. In the beginning The Joker simply takes his schoolbus into the convoy to escape. And the way he avoids police in broad daylight and blows up the hospital is unbelievable.

B. The Joker in this film is someone with a predilection for violence and violence alone. Traditionally, The Joker has been a nefarious, insane character. He does things that are out of kilter with normalcy. He then laughs at what he does and takes unexpected delight in it. This Joker is not like so. He's simply a disturbed psychopath who likes to blow up things and harm others. There's no depth to the character.

C. Harvey Dent has been traditionally Black the last 2 decades. That and the way he's made into Two-Face in this movie is totally wrong. Two-Face traditionally goes on to become a crime boss but in this movie, he simply dies soon after coming into being. He also isn't a good Two-Face, overusing his coin flip to make decisions. For example, in the limousine scene he flips the coin again and kills the driver in order to eliminate a crime boss. The real Two-Face wouldn't have cheated like this once the coin makes a decision for him.

D. Batman himself doesn't appear much in the movie. We are shown glimpses of him and the fight scenes are very darkly lit so it's hard to see who and how he's fighting. His over-reliance on technology is also not good because Batman usually uses wits as well as brawn. The voice of Batman is guttural sounding and Bruce Wayne himself doesn't seem to have any emotions. Micheal Keaton's portrayal of Batman in Batman (made in 1989) is by far the best in all movies.

The Dark Knight is not just not a good Batman film. It's a poor film in any genre. I recommend watching Batman (1989) if one wants to see an excellent Batman film. Here's a small sample from this great movie that's better than the entire The Dark Knight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC249jPbBDY

Star Trek Nemesis was directed by the fellow who directed U.S. Marshals. U.S. Marshals was some action movie in the mid-90s. I don't know what Star Trek writers thought when bringing this director in. The man hardly knew a thing about Star Trek and kept referring to Geordi LaForge as LaVern during the making of the movie. Picard and Data have good roles but again, the lighting of the sets is mostly dark and the special effects are not good. Why is it that Star Trek 2, 3 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have good special effects but Insurrection and Nemesis don't? The reliance on CGI (Computer generated images) is apparent in both these movies. Star Trek isn't fun without good special effects. The plot in Insurrection was okay but the movie is basically an action-thriller sort. Star Trek doesn't do well with this kind of genre as its primary vehicle. The series and movies does good if the action is there to complement it, but it cannot be the impetus for the movie. B4 the android is annoying as the devil and the parts of Troi being "raped" are awkward. The Reman warship Scimitar is about 100 times better than the Enterprise on paper but somehow Picard and 2 Romulan vessels manage to hold it off forever. There also isn't a lot of character interaction between the crew and this is a major drawback. This wasn't a good Star Trek movie. Probably only a return to the style of the first 8 will save Star Trek.

There have been five star trek serials now: Star Trek, Star Trek the next generation, Star Trek deep space 9, Star Trek voyager and Enterprise.

Star Trek was 10/10, simply because it was so novel and the character interactions were so well done. Kirk made a great captain, Spock was a unique person but also a unique first officer, McCoy provided many laughs and was always questioning Kirk and especially Spock's decisions. The music was also varied and good.

Star Trek the next generation was a little different from star trek. It didn't seem to be as catching because it seemed subdued. Much of this probably has to do with Captain Picard. Picard takes some getting used to. He seems stoic and unemotional outwardly. However, the more one watches him the more he realises that Picard's style is simply different from Kirk's or most captains. Riker is an excellent first officer, with Kirk's tactical skills. Worf is a great security man and one of the best characters ever on any star trek series is Data. Data is played by an excellent actor and his growth on the series is something the viewer will appreciate. LaForge, Crusher and Troi are excellent side characters. Star Trek the next generation was a 9/10.

Star Trek deep space 9 took a year or two to get going. By the 3rd season, it was good. The 4th, 5th and 6th seasons were great. The last two years, however, were not so good. The show became obsessed with one enemy, the Dominion. This could have been a good thing but turned bland because the settings were always the same and no new characters were introduced. The idea simply got worn out and wasn't executed too well to begin with. Star Trek deep space 9 had memorable characters, though not in the league of the previous two series. Captain Sisko became too military-like and robotic in the last two years. Kira was too much of a feminist to begin with, while Dr.Bashir, Chief O'Brian, Garak, Dukat, Odo and Quark were excellent characters. Star Trek deep space 9 was the third best serial in the series. 8/10.

Star Trek voyager wasn't watched much by me. Star Trek started going downhill at this point. Janeway was a pretty good captain but the plots were starting to become darker and character interactions were becoming superficial. Love triangles and inane comedy was beginning to be introduced. Seven Of Nine was nothing special as an actor or character yet the plots seemed to revolve around her. The writers started losing the essence of Star Trek with this show. 5/10.

Enterprise is the newest Star Trek serial. It ran from 2001 to 2005. I don't know what the writers and producers and directors were thinking when they made this show. Or rather, I do know what they were thinking. And they weren't normal thoughts. Firstly, they tried to get away from being associated with Star Trek by taking out the words Star Trek from the show's title. They then brought in Scott Bakula to play the part of the captain and a woman for the second officer position whose only appeal is supposed to be for her looks. The plots may be alright but 90% of the show is spent on crew relationships and saying hackneyed, dull comical lines. The reason behind all this is to appeal to the younger generation of viewers, those who are 14 to 23 years old. These viewers grew up in the age where television has gone dramatically downhill due to feminism and bad scripts. Explosions on the screen is the way a show's greatness is judged these days. Or if there are character interactions present, it will be in the form of American Idol or other 'reality' based contests. Without the element of diverse natures, mystery and the uncertainty of how a character will respond, the fun in watching television loses its appeal. Enterprise is 2/10.

Star Trek the next generation was one of the greatest serials made for television. Gene Rodenberry's input on that show was one reason it did so well. I don't think he would approve of where the Star Trek legacy has gone now.

This serial is about Napoleon Bonaparte, emperor of the French people after The French Revolution takes place. The only thing really lacking in this film is the war scenes. They simply don't use enough soldiers to give a realistic effect of a battle. The rest of the serial is very good. The acting is good and what I especially liked is how they show closeups of the characters at certain times. The music is good and theatrical sounding. The costumes worn by the characters are expensive and beautiful (much like French design is in real life) and the architecture of the houses was splendidly recreated in great details.

I bought this series from A&E and definitely recommend watching it if you're a guy who's interested in historical serials. Napoleon is one of the most fascinating of them all, so who better to watch one about?

Crime And Punishment. War And Peace. A Canticle For Leibowitz. Like any great novel, Star Trek set the standard by which all others are measured. I first saw Star Trek as a child when Star Trek: The Next Generation was beginning to be made. Star Trek didn't have as nice special effects, both technologically and artistically. But something about it sticks with the viewer, and this is the characters. Captain James Kirk. First Office Spock. Doctor Leonard McCoy. Chekov. Sulu. Scotty. These are names that are indelibly etched into memory for me. The actors do a marvelous job of being the colours while the plot paints the distant future for us. Most of the first 9 Star Trek movies are equally superb. Star Trek...to boldly go where no man has gone before. It indeed did. Excellent, excellent serial!!

I used to watch Ducktales as a child in the '90s. Back then, television had normal cartoons. These days, what we see on television is not normal. Luckily, cartoons like Ducktales can be purchased and I definitely recommend doing so! This show took a lot of effort to make. One can see that immediately in the animation and voices used. The drawings are excellent and don't look like a 5 year old made them. The voices are harmonious and well suited for their roles. There are many characters as well, each with their own personality. This cartoon took real work to be made and it's apparent. The plots are good in most of the episodes. The music is another thing which is very well suited to the show. Even after so many years, I still remember some of the melodies. Similar to Gummi Bears, even the introduction of Ducktales is a small masterpiece in itself. I would say the introductions of both cartoons is superior to many entire cartoon serials today.

When judging how great a movie or cartoon or book or poem or song is, one should ask himself, "Did I think about this show or book after I finished watching or reading it?". You probably will find yourself thinking about Ducktales at some point after watching it. Excellent cartoon!

I think this movie was the last one that Peter Sellers made before passing away. It's very funny for many reasons. As usual, Peter Sellers does a great job of portraying the inspector who is a buffoon but always manages to do two things very well. One, escape from life-threatening situations. Two, solve the crime. The script is written so that Inspector Clauseu always catches the crook by a combination of being the luckiest guy on the planet and yet always doing the wrong thing without planning to. This leads to a very funny movie!! The actors are all superb. Herbert Lom and Burt Kwouk do a fantastic job with their roles. Indeed, the amount of acting talent in this movie and the Pink Panther series is hard to match by any comedy. Like 'A Shot In The Dark', this ranks as an excellent comedy!

This show was so good because one could compete with the contestants, similar to Jeopardy and some other game shows. The songs that were sung were good and the gamehost especially played his part very well. This was another normal television show 15 years ago which would be considered excellent by today's standards according to myself. There was no nudity, no tattoos, no cursing, no feminist women with chips on their shoulders, no unhealthy weirdness. A great show for adults and kids which is sorely missed and needed in our time.

Enjoy the following!! Just copy and paste the below link into your URL box and you can watch clips of this show at http://www.dailymotion.com/videos/relevance/search/witwics

This has to be one of the worst of the bad movies that is produced on television these days. I have however noted one commonality between TV getting worse and the rise of women directors. Women tend to make emotional "reality" based television shows. Also they lean towards making odd shows. Consider that many of the soap operas like Bold and the Beautiful and Days of Our Lives were geared towards women viewers. Hence the directors of those shows listened to female input. Because they knew women viewers wanted that sort of thing. However, every movie made now has a problem like this. If a male director makes it, he'll attempt to make the female characters big, strong, independent, macho, beer-swilling, able to beat up guys twice their size. If a female director creates a movie, she'll make the main characters all women and it'll be an emotional love roller-coaster story. Anyone notice this??

Ghostbusters is a cartoon about 4 men who make a team that captures ghosts that trouble the populace in New York. This cartoon actually deserves 10 out of 10 marks but for one problem, the animation. The characters sometimes move too slowly to give the appearance of uninterrupted motion.

Plot: 10/10. Many times The Ghostbusters will have to save the world. They will also have to use their wits to wiggle out of tight situations and defeat far numerically superior or physically stronger ghosts with supernatural powers. Music: 10/10. Very good. Catchy tunes and harmonious. Fits the climaxes perfectly. Characters: 10/10. All the Ghostbusters have different personalities, just as people in real life do. Slimer and Jennine are good side-additions. The ghosts range from small, impish trolls who are harmless to huge, menacing and powerful monoliths. Technology: 10/10. Lots of gizmos and gadgets. Many futuristic weapons that we only dream of having today. Location: 10/10. They travel around the world in some episodes. The Ghostbusters' headquarters is large and houses the 'containment unit' which keeps ghosts from escaping. Animation: 6/10. The one weakness which cost the show a 10 rating. The quality isn't bad but it could definitely have been better since the show was started in 1986.

If you haven't watched The Real Ghostbusters, you're missing out on a great cartoon series. Rent it now!

That song alone makes this movie about 8 out of 10. This is an excellent action movie that I've seen at least 20 times. The cast is one of the reasons why the film is so good. The good guys are all suited perfectly for their roles while the bad guys are the same way. The 3 main bad guys and their hired helping hand, Ashghar, are a batch of many types. They form a potent team that is hard to beat. The good guys are slightly fewer in number but able to make up for it by being formidable themselves. The songs are excellent throughout, the music is great, and the action is fast yet the plot relaxes here and there to make the movie go at a good pace. I highly suggest this movie to anyone who likes Indian action films. The movie "Om" was very good too and Vinashak is in that flavour!!!

The movie is excellent. Bhagat Singh was an extraordinarily brave man who is portrayed very well by his actor in this movie. The movie is a little too violent in nature for anyone too young. Hence, small children should not see it. The movie shows how much so many suffered for Indian independence. The fehringee rule in colonial India was brutal, barbaric and oppressive. The film doesn't hide this fact and the amount of violence towards the revolutionaries is difficult to watch because of its grotesqueness. However, it was necessary, so that the viewer gets an idea of the truth. This movie will bring any Indian to tears and make him realise the sacrifices made by our forefathers. 10 marks out of 10.

I am an Indian residing in the United States. Why India continues, like a dumb animal, to emulate everything American is beyond me!! The main problems with the movie aren't so much the inane plot and dumb comedy. It is that this movie has a lot of debauchery, touching, women dressing like strumpets in the streets, and a lot of cursing that doesn't belong anywhere on T.V.

To the producers and directors of this movie, I have this message: You continue to weaken our nation's strong family values by making this sort of junk. You continue to let young women think it's okay to have a feminist attitude and have no morals. You continue to make dance songs that belong in the lowest of adult clubs and bars. I am ashamed to be an Indian after seeing movies like this.

In 2003, the United States government suggested that the best way to destroy Iran is to 'send miniskirts' there. There is no need to do that for India. We will destroy ourselves with rubbish like this.

What is wrong with American movies these days? Hollyweird keeps making movies that have men acting like women and women acting like men. The idiotic male director and writer of this movie need to have their heads examined. The main problem with this film is its extremely feminist portrayal of genders which is fused with almost macabre conceptions of both sexes, and this disastrous combination is meant to be jocular.

In the scenes of the bar, Eva Mendez and her friend are swigging from the beer bottles like you may find sailors on an oil tanker doing so at a bar in Reykjavik. Mendez continually touches every girl she sees after that and dresses provocatively in every scene, yet curses like a guy. She also gets very emotional when she fights with Will Smith while 'defending' women from bad guys everywhere.

The men are no better in this movie. What we see is a bunch of idiots trying to do anything they can to obtain a relation. They are concerned with obtaining lewd favours or unable to speak clearly when face to face with a woman. Normal men in real life do not behave this way.

What we see in this movie is a product of culture gone awry. Everything is flip-flopped. Guys act like girls, girls act like guys. All this is done while keeping the extreme predilections of the sexes very much a part of the story. Men are shown as soft and stupid but only interested in licentiousness most of the time, while women are shown as macho and overbearing but only as a veneer for their emotional insecurities.

Some of this movie's ideas would be at the most watchable if they weren't presented obnoxiously to the audience. However, this movie is not even watchable, let alone enjoyable!

I grew up watching the original Predator and Alien movies. This disgrace of a movie is so bad, I don't know where to begin. Let's start.

1. Some 'tough' woman who seems to be built like a man is the one who is responsible for sending the alien to its demise. As a sidenote, anyone notice how the women in this movie fight more manly than the men do? Hollyweird is getting weirder. What's so difficult to make a normal man hero and a partner woman heroine?

2. What is with the fight scenes in this movie?? There was enough blood in 2 fight scenes to fill the quota for ten horror films of the 90s. More blood DOES NOT equal more enjoyment. It detracts from it. The types of violent depictions in this movie are disturbing. On top of this the fight sequences are so short they seem disjointed.

3. Plot is inane and devoid of any thinking. It's an action movie so it's not supposed to contain very deep philosophical messages. But even action movies have to have some sort of standard. This movie is just a bunch of manhating women shooting around at night-time and a lot of people getting killed in very violent ways. Disgusting.

4. Very short movie. Very dark lighting in the film. This movie is so terrible that I cannot find the words. Utter garbage.

Like most television these days, this show thrives on three things: Male bashing, naked women, no plot that takes some thinking to make. What happened to the days when shows like MacGyver and cartoons like Duck Tales were on television? What happened to normal shows like Highway To Heaven and Full House? Movies and TV in the last 10 years has only been able to make junk things. This sickness seems to pervade all facets of TV. Even advertisements have this problem. Desperate Housewives is a show that takes little thinking to make. It takes little thinking to follow. It takes little thinking to watch it. It's time to ditch these garbage shows and get something that we can call 'normal'. Because this show definitely belongs in the dustbin!!

Horrible movie! Why is that everything coming out of Hollyweird has two major problems? One, the women are made to act like men. They dress more shabbily than the male characters, they have more physical strength than the male characters, they have more scientific aptitude than the male characters, they display more willpower than the male characters. The public seems to feed off this perverted view of modern women. Two, the plot in these movies is a joke. What's so difficult about making a normal movie that takes some brains to follow? All these films have explosions, more explosions, and then some more explosions. The style of filming is also becoming darker, more syncopated, especially the fight scenes. Ditch these garbage films NOW!!

I watched this movie when I was around 11 years old (1991). It was great and I also saw Short Circuit 1. Short Circuit 2 was liked better by me back then and after watching them both again, I still like the 2nd one better. Johnny's voice is much better and he looks better too. The acting by the two leading men and the female department store worker is very good too. The plot in the movie is excellent and I recommend this movie to everyone. There's a lot of junk on T.V. these days and the quality has deteriorated very badly the last decade or so. This movie is the movie one needs to see if he wants to escape that junk and watch something that is enjoyable.