spyder7

I look forward to every new revelation brought to us by the JWST. The technology is amazing, even though it will obviously be practically obsolete in 50 years. No matter, it's very exciting right now and we are already learning a ton from about a year of data coming down.

This doc, however, was extremely light on content. If you have followed the telescope's development, launch, deployment, etc with any interest at all, there really wasn't much new here. There were some helpful insights into the budget and how it became so inflated. Beyond that, there wasn't much else that I hadn't seen before.

I would love a slightly more technical take on this extraordinary technology. It would also be nice to see some more details on its development. If they could have added some deeper content, this doc would be a must-see. As is, I'd skip it.

I watched this movie again for about the seventh time after a 10 year lapse or so. If there ever was magic on screen, Back to the Future has it. By the end of the film, I was only thinking, "Wow, Hollywood was once capable of putting magic on the screen." It really makes you wonder if the best of Hollywood is behind us.

To summarize a few components of the movie: The storyline and plot are superb, even with the minor plot holes. The acting is spot on in every scene. Today's film editors should watch this film a hundred times to see what editing should really be like, nearly flawless. The direction is unbelievable in my opinion. The screen writing and script are perfect as well and will make you laugh and smile throughout the movie. Every line by the awkward McFly family, every crazy rumbling of "Doc", and even the cheesy bully taunts of Biff fit together so well.

When I sat down to watch this movie a few days ago, I expected to see an aged movie that I remembered being much better than it actually was. I'm so glad I was wrong.

Unfortunately, the acting in this movie has to be the first thing discussed in any review, because it stands out as the most glaring flaw in the movie. Marsden shouldn't ever be allowed to play lead, he could barely carry the role of the fourth or fifth billed character in "X-Men" (& X2). He was barely tolerable in those movies, but he's painful here. Fortunately for him, the movie still survives his lead attempt, honestly because it feels in a lot of ways like a made for TV family film anyway.

Beyond Marsden, every female role in the film was weakly acted and written. Oldman and Lloyd are the only ones to really consider as having done a decent job with their roles. I harp on the acting because I really never got over it. When it's that bad, it really detracts from the movie.

That being said, you may notice, I still 'granted' the movie a 7, hehe. Really, it was because of all the little tricks and surprises that hold your attention. The messages were blunt, really, but not too preachy in my opinion, so I never minded them. The story is pretty solid and should certainly pique your interest enough to carry you on the ride that is "Interstate 60." It should definitely be noted that there's nothing deeply philosophical about the movie; I think it is well suited to any age group, almost. Thus my title to this review. Typically, I'd advocate a few swear words, and sometimes the more, the better. In this film, they all felt forced and very out of place. Even Michael J Fox's part was uncomfortable because of the language. Without the excessive language and the "sex talk scene" the film loses absolutely nothing, while gaining a much broader audience.

To me, this was an obvious error on the part of the filmmakers and especially the producers to not demand that they target a younger age group in addition to adults of all ages. Even though it was a fairly inexpensive film to make, it never made the big screen and I severely doubt they have recouped a fraction of the money spent to make the film. Maybe it was a lesson learned though. Maybe Gale needed to travel Interstate 60...

I know, it's cheesy.

Nearly every person who likes this movie mentions something about the art and CGI. Even though I'm not drastically in love with either Star Wars or LoTR, I'd much rather watch THAT kind of CGI and appreciate it rather than pretend I'm enamored by a cartoon. Granted, the graphic art was the best part of this film, but there is not much else that's even good.

I enjoyed the film enough I suppose, to sit through it once that is. The story is adequate at best...anyone could write it. Yeah, there are some dispersed messages relating to life in general, but they feel preachy and forced to me. The film really never found an identity in regards to genre. Granted, this isn't always a problem, but it was here. I was confused the whole way through, waiting for a spot to laugh and trying to figure it if the drama was serious. The end effect was that it was not really ever funny and rarely had me waiting to see what developed.

The voices were decent, but I felt Jason Lee was ripped off by the animation. I think he knew where to go with the voice, but it didn't pay off in the graphic rendering of the character. Some of the script really disappointed me, e.g., "I'm not strong enough...to lose you again." Please, spare me. Again, I didn't buy into the drama.

To be fair, this is a kid's film (I'm definitely convinced this has no place among the ranks of non-kid films) and it passes nicely as one. Also, I tend to be unimpressed with most animated features, many for the same reasons as above. However, I knew this was below par when my wife, who loves so many Disney and Pixar films, looked at me at the end and just laughed (it was her second laugh in those two hours). It turns out that she was laughing about how mediocre the film was, which is quite the opposite of her reaction to most other Pixar productions.

I still give it a 7 out of 10, for two reasons. First, the CGI was impressive. Second, it was a solid kid's film, which is what it was meant to be in the first place. Why everyone is raving over it though, I really cannot understand. If I actually believed (like many people are saying in reviews) that this was meant primarily for adults, I'd easily drop it to a 4 or a 5.

I was hugely impressed with this movie, if for nothing else than for the comedy. It might not be the edgiest, wittiest humor at all times, but I found it appropriate to every scene.

The flow of the film is certainly a bit jumbled, almost confusing sometimes, but that is how the characters feel. Sometimes, we're watching a bit of slapstick and other scenes revolve around a decisive discourse on relationships. This might be a bit frustrating to certain viewers, but it brought me closer to the characters' dilemmas of irregular chaos.

The acting is great from everyone. I'm a huge Andy Richter fan, but I wasn't head over heels for his part like everyone else seems to be. He did very well, but Julianne Nicholson and Lauren Graham stole the show for me, both in their respective ways. Jay Mohr performs as expected, if you've seen him in other films. I've always liked him.

Overall, the movie is very funny and offers some nice foundations for a few types of relationships. When it comes to relationship questions and problems, some films try to surprise. There's nothing surprising about the conclusions offered here, but it's entertaining to watch them be revealed throughout the film.

First off, I'm a huge fan of U2. So, maybe I watched "The Joshua Tree" documentary with too many expectations. I was severely disappointed by how much of the discussion was dedicated to how ahead of its time the album was, how timeless it will be, and how other (and others') music doesn't measure up to it. I wouldn't have minded had this been coming from critics. However, most of it was from each member of the band and those involved with the making of the album. Call me crazy, but I'd rather not listen to how great an artist thinks his/her work is during a documentary.

Although that may be a somewhat trivial annoyance, I was also disappointed with the lack of content. I wanted to hear more relatable stories. By the end of the short "hour of bragging", oops, I mean documentary, I felt no closer to really knowing the band. This is something that was accomplished in a much greater way with the Rattle and Hum video (which is amazing if you haven't seen it). Actually, I take that back, I learned that the gossip was true, U2 is incredibly vain.

Nevertheless, the album is an amazing one, and this video does an okay job of keeping my attention for an hour. I wouldn't be too sad if I never saw it again however.

First off, I just have to say that nobody should tell you what a movie is supposed to be or meant to be. A corollary to that however, is that we all come into each movie with different expectations.

Personally, I expected a huge blockbuster (which it was), while sticking to the quality I feel that Batman (1989) had. Unfortunately, I think the quality was lacking in several areas. First off, the acting was sub-par to me. My expectations, like all of you, get me into trouble here. I have always admired Dafoe's work, but he didn't seem at all comfortable in this role (and no, I really don't think I was typecasting him in my own mind). Toby was fine, but that's it. Dunst seemed to be overacting or something...I couldn't really tell. The script (dialogue) was bad period. Yeah, comic books usually are comprised of elementary dialogue but this was an insult even so. Obviously, you can't give the movie any credit for plot, twists, or cool self-referential themes since it's based on a prior work. The CGI was bad, see Attack of the Clones or LoTR for what they SHOULD have done with the computer graphics. The mood and tone throughout was decent, but Batman was better (credit Burton). The pace of the movie and the action, which is what I was so excited about, really didn't do it for me. Again, Attack of the Clones blew this movie out for pace and action. Okay, it's not fair to compare the two on that note, but I was expecting something more towards what I eventually saw in Attack of the Clones.

It was worth seeing, but I won't be buying it and won't be seeing it again. Love you all!

I worked in an electronics store when this movie came out, so it was a good one to run constantly on the big TV's and home theatre systems. So, in total, I probably saw it 100 times or more. Yes, this movie deserves the rating it has on IMDb, but strangely it gets better after you've seen it about 100 times. I don't know why, but there's an unexplainable attraction to it...hmmmmm. I know it's not the acting, I can tell you that much.

Seriously, for mindless fun with decent effects and a vice to wake up the neighbors with the subwoofer, check it out. It's about on par with Independence Day.

I don't want to comment on the film itself a great deal. You'll find more than enough reviews listed on the site to read. I do, however, want to encourage everyone to see this film and judge it for yourself. Most of the users criticizing the film in some manner seem to have a knack for grumbling about movies from time to time (just click on their username and read some of their reviews). I can sympathize with many of the points made by harsh critics of the film, but argue that the movie doesn't match up with their personality, mood, or desires. It has happened to me with many films.

This is a great movie, it will be compared for years to come. Obviously, much of the movie is unoriginal by comparison to all of the raving over its originality. Movies have been made for almost a hundred years! Almost nothing is original anymore! Yes, all you critics, you've seen this stuff before, somewhere. No matter what, I do recommend seeing this excellent commentary on life.

The best estimate I can get is that about 2% of people disliked this movie for some stupid reason. As you can see by the barrage of praises, Gladiator is a superb movie, I think it has a very legitimate shot at Picture of the Year. If people can't acknowledge that, I think they are very short sighted. I noticed that the biggest criticism received is that this movie has an very unoriginal storyline. Well, in that case most love story movies, cop shows, natural disaster films, and science fiction films are horrible too. Give me a break, ideas are made to be built on, this movie does a spectacular job of a Gladiator story. Just see it, it's worth it.

If you can handle a lot of violence in a movie and really want to laugh, go ahead and see this movie. Granted, you may feel guilty in laughing during the movie, but don't, this one is too much fun! Most people that leave negative comments for this movie apparently were not prepared to handle some of the violence, both emotional and physical, that the director brings to the audience. Admittedly, if you are in the wrong mood, this movie will not work. However, if you are ready to check out a "1990's tragedy" with dark comedy intertwined, see it. I found myself getting into this movie a bit and thus enjoyed it immensely. However, if I was in a serious mood, my impressions might have been much different. Enjoy but be careful.

No movie can convey the way war looks, feels, sounds, you get the idea. If you want a movie that conveys the horrible sights of war, do see Saving Private Ryan. The Thin Red Line actually penetrates life beyond the realm of war. I like it for that reason exactly. It ties war to some of the most intense philosophical questions while using a decent superficial plot to entertain those with elementary school mentalities. It does not lack humor, although much of it may only be funny if you see where the writer is coming from. I noticed many people gave this one a "1" for a rating. Trust me, the average IQ of those people mirrors that rating. Overall, a superb film.