hamoo

As per other reviews, russell crowe's performance was flawless, however, he alone is carrying the movie. The chances are good that the only reason for laurel marsden's role as amy is to connect with the teenage audience, however, amy didn't do it for me. But it wasn't laurel that ruined the movie, it was the sound effects. The sound effects are just too obnoxiously loud, to the point that it gave me a headache. Then, when i lowered the volume to be able to tolerate the movie, i couldn't hear the dialogue. That's the bottom line. Deafening, overpowering sound effects trying to make a make believe demon is evil. No, if you want to be horrified look at something real that people do, like war. Or take a look at what the people of the faroe islands did to the dolphins.

I can't justify writing a review when there are already 250 of them, except to reiterate what has already been said - there isn't a plot. It was just, like, train of consciousness. Definitely a chick movie. If i ever invite a woman over to watch a movie, this would be a good choice. I was going to rate it a 6, then bumped it up a star because no one got shot or stabbed. Moreover, there really wasn't any drama or trauma, which is cliché, and gets old. The one easter egg in the movie was at 1min14sec in the first commentary, there were recommendations of other similar films: portraits of youth (2015), shoot the piano player (1960), suzanne's career (1963), jules and jim (1962), and a single girl (1995)

The other review of this documentary was mostly spot on. I'm not a big fan of the aclu either as their primary objective isn't to support the rights of one person at the expense of the judeo christian community. The primary purpose of the aclu is to make money. But this isn't here nor there. I didn't know the aclu was involved in making this movie until i read that review. The other review also missed the motive for the government's actions of taking away american's civil rights, and that is to keep and stay in power, and to make money. You have to look at the common denominator in all of this - it's all about the money - in every aspect: on a personal, political, and social level. And when your allegiance is to money, well, then, it can not be to the constitution. No one serves two masters. That bit of wisdom is older than the hills.

really, emma is such a great actress; and this movie was full of talent. and all of them showed that they were all beyond that Hollywood bromide that they are forced in to participate. i could watch this movie again. and again. just to figure out what don john's motive was to sabotage hero's wedding. somehow i missed that.

i had originally given this movie a 7 because it was soooo bland and actionless. however, on reflection, i found that by watching it i could fall asleep. almost as good as groundhog day. really, the movies with the guns have gotten quite old and cliché - i mean, they are the new boring. this movie was a refreshing change.

as far as this goes - "If you write a spoiler without warning readers, your name will be added to a blacklist and all your future reviews will be discarded automatically and unread" - i don't think it possible to write a spoiler for this movie. it didn't have a plot. maybe that's what makes this movie not a cliché. plots are overrated - both in literature class, and in Hollywood.

if you want to see shooting and action, i would recommend the chronicles of riddick. but i'm guessing, if you watched this movie, you wanted to see a chick flick. as i'be seen chronicles quite a few times already, i am ready for a change

my first rating was a 7 after watching it a second time, i upgraded to an 8

this is what i couldn't figure out about the movie: how does Madeleine Stowe look like / remind me of Rachel Weisz did they have the same make up artist ? - no

it was a great movie except for the treacly violin music at the end. it reminded me of another bruce willis movie with violin music at the end - tears of the sun

one of bruce's all around good movies, i guess maybe even best, considering the fact that i can't think of any better except for the sixth sense

would recommend to a friend ? yes

i have played this game for hours. days. it's a beautiful work of art that you should experience. however, it's not perfect; there are glitches in the game, for example, if you recruit a knight at the wrong time, you can't unrecruit him/her and they follow you through the rest of the game. this makes some quests impossible to do, for example, you can't steal anything. i don't have the complete list of glitches, but that's the one that got me. my biggest complaint against bethesda (producer) is that there are several unofficial mods that enhance gameplay. why don't they purchase the mods and deglitch them, and upgrade their product ? is it really that difficult ? oblivion is an excellent game, but we want more. more realism in video, more realistic gameplay, and more than what is coined as the "vanilla" flavor, because of it's plainness. bethesda can do more to enhance the player experience, but they just stop at the point where the cost benefit curve is maximized.

this movie was great, as evidenced by all the accolades and praises of the few that watched it. sadly, the people that need to watch it, which is everyone, don't, so Americans will live in oblivion as usual, and nothing changes. the one question that baffles me is how can they tell if a carbon atom comes from corn? i mean, as far as i know, one carbon atom is as good as another. i know how spectrgraphy and spectroscopy work. but the explanation of how they pinpointed where atoms come from was maybe beyond the scope of the movie, but should have been addressed somewhere

the thought "why write another review when there are already 177 of them" has already crossed my mind, so i'm just going to give my opinion: a lot of reviews crucified this movie because it doesn't jibe with the book. i didn't read the book, so it wasn't a consideration. i liked it because no one got blown up or shot. it was quite sedate; it made me fall asleep, so i missed a lot of it. i'm planning on going back and watching it again. movies that make me fall asleep get an extra star. i don't need to stay awake with my adrenaline pumping. also, i'm planing on listening to the audiobook next. maybe the contrapositive of naysayers holds true; maybe i won't like the audiobook because it doesn't jibe with the movie. typically, i like movies like "v" and "law abiding citizen", but i like movies like this also because they help me relax. i really don't need a whole lot of entertaining.

i'm adding yet another review because, even though the movie was about a real life "nowhere man" right out of a beatles song, (all the other reviews are right on target with how uneventful the movie is, and there's no action), that's what makes it such a great movie. going to movies where there are bullets flying and the hero walks through unscathed gets old. those movies are unrealistic. i'm tired of them. this was a movie about something real. there wasn't any guns. there wasn't any nudity. there were some controversial issues raised, but that's part of life. yes, this movie was dull and uneventful, but i can relate to that.

there are problems with capitalist based economy. that's the only part of the documentary that was true. but the problem with the problems of work (pow) is the faulty logic used to come up with the conclusion that scientology is the solution. the first thing pow got wrong is the reason. capitalism is the problem. the monetary system is thousands of years old and it doesn't work anymore. this is the 21st century, and we're still using a financial standard that dates back to prehistoric times. if you want to see the root cause of the problem with work, watch the zeitgeist movies. the zeitgeist movies are more exact with respect to the root problem and the solution. pow presents the problem, but then offers a very poor explanation of why the problem exists or how to fix it. ron hubbard isn't a revolutionary who identifies a problem that society is unaware of. this problem of work is as old as civilization itself. that's where the idiom "dog eat dog world" comes from. if you're one of the scientologists that gave this movie a 10, do yourself a favor and read about logic flaws. you can get a very good education on the internet when it comes to logic flaws. my advise is to skip this one, unless you are taking a logic class, and with to do an analysis.

i'm really not into stupid comedies, but i liked this one mainly because (contrary to other reviews) this one is based on a real person, so you could also classify it as historical fiction. you can't hardly go wrong with historical fiction. i didn't have high expectations, and i haven't seen the other movies; This IS The End, Pineapple Express, Team America: World Police that are being compared to this movie, so for me, it was a novelty. it was new and exciting. the reason i didn't give it a 10 is mainly because i didn't appreciate the homosexual innuendos. if you want to call me a homophobe, i'm OK with it, but i would like to propose an alternative theory that sony is trying to push their homosexual agenda on the public. maybe gay people constitute a significant percentage of their audience. it doesn't matter. my second objection to the movie is that it paints a one dimensional political potemkin village of America exactly like the fake grocery store in the movie. that is to say that America and capitalism are the origin of every single malfunction in this world. for example, the movie condemns hunger and starvation in north Korea, but doesn't touch on the subject of obesity in America. sony had the opportunity to slam our American culture on the interview, but only touched on the fact that America has the highest per capita incarceration statistics in history. i guess people who can afford to go to the movies constitute a significant percentage of people that are brainwashed by cnn and fox news and think that this country is beyond reproach or that its politicians have the right to act with impunity. that is to say, for a political comedy, or historical fiction, the history and politics weren't there. kim jong-un was portrayed as a charismatic intellectual. that type of person just doesn't go belly up. there should have been a counterstrike in the actual interview portion of "the interview". whatever; that's enough of that rave, but it's the reason i didn't give it one more star. i don't want this review to come off overly critical, because i'm just pointing out the flaws. the bottom line is that i couldn't have done a better job. it was actually thought provoking. the music/soundtrack and cinematography were first rate. i'm glad i had the time to see it.

i agonized for quite some time debating whether another review was warranted. is there anything that i could add that hasn't been said? yes: 1. that george eastman could be any one of us at some point in our lives - a hot mess. and this is where it hits home. i suspect the negative reviews of apits is founded upon the maxim: "if you spot it you got it". men are uncomfortable with seeing that in themselves. the only other equal to this movie could possibly be the talented mr. ripley. 2. there was a synopsis that said alice tripp latched on to george eastman like a vice. unfortunately, this is true. after she found out that george is a coward, a liar, and a cheater, alice should have walked away. but that's easy for me to say. i don't have to raise a child on my own. part of what makes this such a great movie is that alice is a trusting, sweet, young, and beautiful woman. only a fool would walk away from that, and this is exactly where i can relate. i want to say that a lying, cheating, coward is going to get his comeuppance, but then i think which one of us has led a perfect life? not me, that's for sure.

if you like nudity and violence, then this may be the movie for you. otherwise, you'll probably find it a waste of time, and maybe even offensive. personally, i find nudity and violence hackneyed. the acting was pretty bad. i mean, there were a lot of people in the movie. so if a fifth of them did a terrible job, then it shows. the plot was wanting also. the whole world isn't in some drug and alcohol induced riot. people just don't behave this way. then, if they did, there's the national guard. and martial law. where was that ? it just didn't cut it for me, and a poor choice in case you were watching it with a date. my recommendation for a strange off-the-wall movie: requiem for a dream.

hands down, one of the worse movies i've ever watched. the plot was abysmal. do people really act like this in real life ? it's one of the "please shoot me and put me out of my misery" movies. is there any reason i didn't turn it off and give up on it ? why did i watch it to the end ? i wasn't curious. i had no empathy at all. it made me feel that maybe this world would be a lot better off if all the sarahs died in a car crash. and their mothers too. maybe i had to watch it so when i saw a really good movie, i'd appreciate it. this movie is the touchstone of all Hollywood chick flick template detritus. should have invested this time in a video game.

***** contains spoiler ********

as the logic flaw is with the plot. Rupert Angier and Alfred Borden both had versions of the transported man. i don't see how one magician used his double over and over in the same trick, but the other didn't use his double. geez, could have had triples with his duplicator. why kill the original or the copy ? it was pointless, when they could just put on a show like the other.

if i'm not making myself clear, watch the movie, then read this. i'm not saying the logic flaws the movie. no. it's a great movie. it's well done, per all the other reviews. what i'm saying is that it isn't logical to kill a double or triple. a magician could have a really good show with five or ten or a hundred copies of himself without having to get rid of the originals.

any movie where the hero gets shot at and never gets hit will never get a rating of more than 5.

these people get shot at uncountably many times and never get hit.

what is that ?

maybe the title should be changed to 'spiritual walker gets paycheck'.

having your hero shot at and not hit and die will never be grounds for a good movie.

if you can't kill the hero and heroin, then don't have the guns and crossfire. shooting at will never works for mindless action - it's offensive, and stupid.

i'm not going for this, and neither should you.

the only good thing about this movie was my nap. if you want a better action movie, try 'outlaw josey wales'.

This has to be one of the best movies of all time. The fact that it isn't in the top 250 doesn't reflect positively on the voters. Something is amiss with the audience.

Beautiful cinematography. The casting is perfect. The acting is excellent. And the movie is a work of art: James Fleet is excellent as a henpecked husband to the evil witch Harriet Walter. Tom Wilkinson brief but sincere roll as the Dashwood's father. I have never seen Emma Thompson in a bad movie. I love her acting. Hugh Grant as Edward Ferrars is the perfect gentleman. I would suggest you men take notes, as you should with Alan Rickman as Colonel Brandon, who shows us how to win the girl. Elizabeth Spriggs is the perfect matchmaker. Hugh Laurie's supporting roll as the cross husband to a wife no one would want to be married to cannot be outdone. Any audience with a heart will empathize with the entire cast's wonderful performance.

The plot is about love. Shakespeare himself couldn't have done a better job. The only difference being the tragedy in Sense and Sensibility is ongoing and it has a happy ending.

The goofs are pretty to the point, but there is a big goof in the plot that isn't mentioned. Edward Ferrars was disinherited for his engagement to Lucy Steele, and so the inheritance went to his younger brother Robert. But Robert then marries Lucy and isn't disinherited. It doesn't make much sense. No pun intended.

add one point for the scenery and one point because Rachel Ward is nice to look at to the minimum one point, and you get three. you'd have to be hard pressed to watch this movie. i inherited the video for free and my cable connection is not hooked up. so i qualify as being hard up. maybe i should have read one of my books, but that's hindsight. anyway, this is not one of the movies that i'll be keeping in my collection. the acting was bad. the plot was bad. as a matter of fact, everything was bad except for Rachel Ward's body and the landscape scenes. but you're better off watching national geographic and paying attention to the one you have. this movie made me cry, but it wasn't because it was a tear jerker.

When a film is really good, you can watch it over and over again. I love this film. It never gets old. The cast was wonderful. The plot is wonderful. Charming movie. Delightful. Enjoyable....

1) the american casualties suffered because they had feelings. their wives cried because their loss was horrific, but the vietnamese soldiers didn't suffer or cry when they were wounded (because they had no feeling?), they just died like pawns in a chess game, and none of the vietnamese families grieved their losses (because the vietnamese weren't real soldiers?). 2) another movie i didn't have any interest in watching to the end. 3) it didn't `grab' my emotion. it wasn't powerful or stirring. it wasn't incredible, and it definitely wasn't the best war movie ever.

read only the negative reviews. Bcoming got it quite right. the people that liked this film must be either hard up for a movie, or have no taste. there are too many good movies to watch (or re-watch) for anyone to have to waste their time watching this flop.

a great american movie. typical american justice system. typical american mentality. typical american prejudice. typical american ignorance. typical american emotions. this is the "all american" movie of the year.

Watch it by yourself because if you've ever experienced a tragedy, this movie will move you to cry, cry, cry. If you're a man, you certainly may not want to let anyone see that, and if you're a woman, well, don't women get embarrassed when they cry in front of people?

I am very tired of the stereotypical Hollywood movie. This was not one of them. See it because it's different. This is a real movie.

I always wonder how can life be so beautiful and so tragic at the same time. If you're a real person, this same question has been puzzling you also. This movie doesn't answer the question, but shows you others can think about this mystery also. It shows you that you are not alone. Emma Thompson, Mike Nichols, Su Lin Looi, and the rest of the cast did an outstanding job.

The whole cast did an outstanding job in this movie, and just because I didn't specifically mention Jonathan M. Woodward or Eileen Atkins, it doesn't mean their performance was not equal to everyone else.

If you've been fortunate or young enough not to have experienced a broken heart, if you are fortunate or strong enough not to have any regrets, and if and cannot understand this movie, well, count your blessings. Many of us have regrets. There is nothing more humbling than suffering, grief, and misfortune to cause one to look back on ones mistakes in judgment with regret. The bottom line is that this movie is made for the ones who can not only see the beauty, but who can also see the tragedy that constantly surrounds us; tragedies that we will all experience at some point in our lives.

Sure I cried watching this movie. I cried for all the times that I didn't. I cried because I understood this movie. I'm glad I was alone.

I have an excellent memory. I'm so happy that I can't remember this movie. It must have been horrible because I gave it a 2. Checked my vote history, went to see what this movie was, but couldn't remember. After reviewing the other comments, I'm glad I forgot what it was. I still can't remember!

this is my favourite movie. need i say more? i liked it because of the excellent portrayal of human nature, because of the historical references, and because from an objective point of view, devoid of all subjectivity, it's the best movie ever.