nikkiten1979

Cute movie with some nice shots of the town, some funny moments at the beginning... the acting is very weak though especially from the main character Mr. George and the kid, no matter how adorable the kid is, the bad acting made me cringe. The story is rushed and weak and could have been developed a lot more.

This would be an amazing show if the judges (maybe not all) judged not by the look or personality of a "chef", but by the dish served... the fact is that the judges have decided beforehand WHO their winner is going to be from the first dish - the rest is nitpicking to trick the viewer into believing that others put out an inferior dish.

Another thing I don't like much about this show is lack of diversity... which is painfully lacking. Diversity in cuisines, chefs, etc. It's always the same types of food we see - same entrees, same types of appetizers, same types of desserts. Are these chefs foodies or are they looking for their own personal chefs to work in their kitchens at home?? The show as of late been very whited-out, definitely not enough people of other ethnicities (especially Black, Asian, or dark Hispanic) and if there are they VERY rareeeely win the show no matter how great a dish they present.

Most animé have great great combat scenes, maybe even great visuals due to excellent CGI and maybe some great scenes and story flow... but what is usually lacking is the dialogue, which tends to be lazy and feels like an after-thought.

Gantz:0 had the potential to be an excellent movie, but just like other animé with amazing CGI - it fell flat, over and rolled over into laughing zone. One of the girls just sounds like a mental basket - not sure what they were trying to accomplish with her character.

Overall I liked it... definitely not the best, but the animation alone, combat scenes, story-boarding was excellent.

one of the worst movies i have ever seen in my life and i feel like that's what the producer was trying to do - make the worst movie ever to get a rise out of people? what's the purpose of that? why be known as the guy who can't make movies? a movie can be so bad it's funny, this one fails to be so bad that it's funny. it's simply bad, boring, stupid, awful acting, awful EVERYTHING...

i have wasted 15 loooong minutes on this piece of garbage trying hard to stay interested and even fast-forwarded it to see if it would get better... but NO it kept getting worse!!!

DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME ON THIS PIECE OF GARBAGE...

This is so far the biggest problem with Japanese animé: weak character development, mediocre and plain dialog that seems to be aimed towards children under 10 years of age, redundant stories, characters that look too much alike - we get it that it's a style, but some of the character look like cheap duplicates of one another like Maria & Vexille.

The animation itself wasn't that bad, although it seems like there hasn't been much improvement for the past 7 years... the people are still stiff and have a dead look from time to time, the kissing scene between two main characters was very stiff and unnatural like two dolls kissing.

The effects were nice and definitely passable, but the weak plot of the movie is tiring.

now last, but not least, is the music... it didn't fit with the scenes, totally random and seemed to be there just because someone liked the sound and not how it fit with the story...

"Casino Royal" was sort of a revelation for all the past Bond movies, which showed us what Bond could be. It had a blond, very rugged, flexible, and merciless Bond. The gadgetry was also not as far fetched as the past Bond and we can extract that the newest Bond was trying to lean on being more realistic than fantasy/action.

That said I was very excited to seeing this new "Quantum of Solace" and expected the unexpected, unpredictable, as well as some of the clichés such as sexy girl on the side... Olga Kurilenko's Camille character should have been that, but she was omnipresent and barely an accessory in the movie. From the trailers and all the focus we got on her i'd have expected more of her - like Eva Greene and Halle Berry did. I expected her to be Bond's "necessary" object of attraction - necessary for his mission, but I might have been wanting too much. I might have been feeling too nostalgic of the old Bond movies where Bond is always paired with sexy "ladies" and those unnecessary, but fun, sexy settings. What has happened to that? Was this "Bond Ultimatum" or "James Bourne"? There are many things I like/love about the movie though - the action was non-stop, Daniel Craig is insanely good and very believable as an angry, cold blooded agent... amid the mess of what was going in on like being in a maze, once in a while you'd feel like you were near understanding what was going in on... but let's not forget Judy Dench who is always an unbelievable actress and even better looking than ever.

and more running around, fighting, and running - no talking, just killing, and somehow being 3 steps ahead of everyone. That's how Bond seems to be - well he is an agent, i guess, and he's different...(?) What this Bond missed was a substantial story. The character development seemed halfway there, but rushed and wrapped at the speed of light.

The fact that an hour and ten minutes (maybe even 43 seconds later) i started wondering when it would be over wasn't a great sign. I give it a "too generous" 7 because it was still a very good movie and if "Casino Royale" hadn't set the bar for it... it would have been great.

I'm not a huge fan of anime or 3D animation, but i am a fan of great animated movies that have substance, a story-line that holds from the beginning to the end, thorough and not rushed out character development, great scenery and camera shots that make sense for the moment.

There are many things i liked about this movie, and a some i didn't like.

Some might say that the animation in this movie was flawless. I say it was not and it has nothing to do with opinion. It has something to do with fact and what is capable to be done. I believe that the animation could have been much, much better. The still objects such as the city, buildings, and vehicles were definitely excellent, but the people didn't stand, move, or talk realistically enough and nowadays it is possible to come VERY close to that - but it seems like they ran through that and didn't put enough effort into it. I'll just assume they had a time limit and that was the least of their worries - a lesser worry than the story-line should be.

So I assume than the story line and character development would be the main focus here, since little was done to better or outdo the first Appleseed movie. I have to say it was in a way equal to the first. A few things i liked the most about this one was the interaction between the character or Deunan and Tereus. The chemistry was well illustrated, and I wish the envelop was pushed a little further and there was some type of physical contact, kissing or something, anything more than just a hug. This way to explore love in a different between a human and a biologically engineered human being that is the copy of someone that you still love.

The cinematographic was entertaining, but the music wasn't that great. I can't stand the upbeat electronic music and wish it had been replaced by something more suitable like some different electronic music that made sense for the movie and the action scenes. A few times i felt trapped in a rave club or some rave party, which i enjoyed when i was in high school, but never enjoyed in a good Sci-Fi movie. I would have stuck with organic or industrial sounds for effects.

Overall this movie isn't better or worse than the first. It's very entertaining and i greatly enjoyed it.

as a fan of the 1st Resident Evil i was seriously disappointed by Resident Evil: Extinction.

The acting was cheesy and pretty bad. Milla Jovovich reminded me of her character in the Fifth Element and Joan of Arc - which i really liked. This movie was borderline dumb and stupid. it was dull and boring. whoever did the make up on the zombies did a very poor job as they looked like they wore cheesy 70s masks on their faces. the cinematography was OK as it reminded of old western movies. Ashanti's acting was awful, even Oded Fehr who is usually a good actor was dull and cheesy. i couldn't understand the glossy look on Milla's face also. it seems like they filtered out her wrinkles or imperfections. it seemed they blurred out under eyes, around her mouth, cheeks, and forehead - and in other shots you can see that her face looks a little different with bags under her eyes. had it not been so obvious i wouldn't keep wondering about it.

it seemed like the movie was rushed into production because someone felt they had something good, but instead it looked like a movie made by a bunch of amateurs movie makers.

the story was flat and boring as was the ending. this movie is for anyone that has absolutely nothing else to watch or is completely enamored with the actors.

I saw an advanced screening of Sin City on March 16 and thought a lot about it. It was a very modern film noir type of movie with predictable events. the predictability didn't ruin the movie though and that's something hard to do. the dialog really matched the characters well. there were a few low points. One that included Brittany Murphy's character. she seemed to have overacted compared to the other actors. Josh Hartnett seemed like he was just hanging there. He came, went, and came back without much of story. They didn't explain what or who he was. One might have to watch it a couple of times to "maybe" understand his role in the movie. The beginning was a little slow, but picked up the pace within the first ten minutes. there were many high points and that's what made me like and appreciate the movie for what it was trying to be. the action scenes were impressively good. it was funny seeing Elija Wood anything other than the hobbit, but he pulled it off well. the cinematography, lighting, and editing was very good and kept me hooked on each scene. it's usually hard to stay focused on a B&W movie. I give it an 8 out of 10 or B.