dgeer80

V For Vendetta is a peculiar movie. Based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore (who, for some reason disowned the project) it has been adapted to contain a rousing beginning and ending, but gets too talky in the middle. This comes as no surprise, however, as the screenplay was written by the Wachowski Brothers - the same guys who directed The Matrix Reloaded, which suffered from similarly flawed storytelling. It seems that handing the directing job over to James McTeigue was not enough.

But this is not to say that the film is a total dud. It is not. It contains an interesting tale of a man who calls himself "V," (played by Hugo Weaving from The Matrix and The Lord of the Rings films) who stands against a totalitarian Great Britain of the not so distant future. He wears a mask reminiscent of Guy Fawkes, who on November 5, 1605 attempted to blow up King James I and the Houses of Parliament. Therefore, V means to blow up similar landmarks of Great Britain on November 5th in order to get his point across - that totalitarianism sucks, and freedom should reign supreme. In the meantime, he seeks out his revenge on his enemies who have wronged him in the past.

Crossing paths with V is Evey (Natalie Portman), a woman whose family was persecuted because of this new regime, but for some reason stills lives an ordinary life - up until she meets V, that is. From that point on, V helps her cope with her past and ultimately side with his ideals. Unfortunately, her character does not offer more than that. Good thing Natalie is a good actress (aside from her poor attempt at a British accent), or there would be nothing going for this character at all. It seems that her character just gets us from A to B, with nothing really all that exhilarating in between.

Much has been said about this movie being anti-George W. Bush or anti-conservative. This can be looked at in two ways. On the one hand, it appears to be nothing more than just be a reflection of Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein and their ideals, since the leader of this future Great Britain, Adam Sutler (John Hurt), is labeled as a conservative (in the same sense Hitler was and Saddam is, which is more extreme), and this totalitarian state he governs seems to reflect similar ideals - especially with a scene or two in the film where people are killed, stripped naked and piled into a ditch like the holocaust.

On the other hand, the people who he persecutes and/or censors are not Jews or Kurds. They are Muslims and homosexuals. Even though James McTeigue claims this film is "an allegory of all governments," it does come off as more of an allegory of the United States and its conservative leaders, because our current conservative leaders are mostly Christian, and the Christian faith teaches that other faiths and homosexuality are wrong. This is not to say that Christians commonly persecute Muslims or gays. This film simply presents a vision of what could happen if leaders in government became extreme in these ideals like Hitler and denied people the freedom to believe and live as they wish.

Whether this movie anti-Bush or anti-conservative is up to the individual viewing the film. But one thing is for certain: the whole idea of this film is to preach freedom. So while comparing conservative Christians to Hitler may seem extreme, our right to even say this in our country is a privilege to treasure.

Political differences aside, this film does get its point across and delivers some exciting moments. Hugo Weaving brings a delightful (and sometimes humorous) performance as V, and we're treated to some great visuals and action sequences when the film gets exciting.

But sadly, the film's exciting moments are few and far between, as uninteresting characters are given more screen time than the much more intriguing V character. And like what was said before, we are given too much dialogue and not enough show. The Wachowskis still have not found their way back to the proper balance between show and tell, and could take some lessons from the Wachowskis of 1999 who made the first Matrix film. Seeing this film was not a regrettable experience - just a forgettable one.

I must confess that I was never much of a King Kong fan. It somehow slipped past me when I was growing up, therefore I never got the chance to really like it or not like it. I was always more of a fan of the classic Universal monsters, so neither Dracula nor Frankenstein let me get the chance to view Kong with the appreciation I should've had as a kid. But now I've seen Kong a couple times since this revelation of mine, which helped me to realize that I truly missed out in my youth. The original film of 1933 is a historical landmark in film-making, and no film freak should ever miss out on the marvel that director Merian C. Cooper and pre-Harryhaussen special effects wizard Willis O'Brien created.

Nevertheless, Peter Jackson, director of the new King Kong, is a different story. The original film is what inspired him to make movies in the first place. This big ape is his childhood hero, and making a new version of Kong is the fulfillment of a lifelong dream. And, after just finishing The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Jackson has never been more ready to accomplish this goal, as he has earned the ability to do anything he wants.

This can be both good and bad. It is good because he cares about the source material so much that he does not want to mess it up, and he can now do everything Willis O'Brien wished he could do back in the 30s. He can create all the monsters he wants, tweak the story and realize Kong to the fullest. But the ability to do anything can also cloud one's judgment, thus the reason this movie ended up being over three hours long.

Now, I'm not saying that I think a long movie is bad. I loved Jackson's Rings movies, which were all at least three hours (or longer with the Extended Edition DVDs). But in that case, I felt that each and every minute of those films was needed to do the books justice. With Kong, at least a half hour could have been cut and the movie wouldn't have suffered one bit. After all, the original was only a little over an hour and a half. Depending on the individual viewing this new version, this might turn people away. I can already hear people saying "A three-hour movie about a giant ape? Huh?"

But despite the fact that my butt was getting numb, I actually did enjoy practically every minute of the film, even though some parts weren't needed. And I do feel that most of the first act was necessary, despite it being slow-moving. Jackson decided to take his time with developing the story and the characters here, as it takes somewhere around a full hour before we even see the hairy beast. This is something not done very often in film anymore, as modern audiences tend to not have much patience. (But they have no need to worry, since the rest of the film consists of two more hours of monsters and action, which is sure to wake up the masses.) ...

So what happens when one takes an almost forgotten MTV anime series from the early 90s and transforms it into a movie? Something wonderful.

No, this isn't Peter Hyam's 2010, but rather a film that takes place in the 25th century entitled Aeon Flux. "Aeon what?" Is it "A-on, or E-on?" This is generally the reaction of people who find out about this film, considering that the title doesn't exactly let us know right away what this movie is about. It hasn't been massively marketed either, so not many people outside the fan base of the anime TV series know much about it anyway. But if one is open-minded enough to check it out, that person should at least like something about it, particularly if one is a fan of true sci-fi.

The story begins by telling us that in 2011, a disease kills every human being save for 1%. Fast forward to 400 years into the future, and the remaining population now lives in a supposedly perfect society called "Bregna," which is ruled by a regime under the authority of Trevor Goodchild (Marton Csokas of The Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Bourne Supremacy). This man found the cure to the disease, and has isolated the remaining population inside a city surrounded by giant walls where on the outside grows an endless jungle ruled by wildlife.

But not everyone agrees with the way things are run, which is where the "Monicans" come in. Highly skilled with unique technology and acrobatics, they seek to turn Bregna upside down to empty out the trash. But when Aeon Flux (Oscar winner Chalize Theron, of Monster fame), the top operative in the Monican rebellion, finally gets her chance to take out the infamous Goodchild, she finds out that there's more to him, Bregna and ultimately herself than she realized. From there, the plot unfolds into many twists and turns that aren't easily predictable to newcomers of Flux, making it as airtight as Aeon's wardrobe, and should please both the fans of the series as well as people who don't know anything about it.

Theron as Aeon (pronounced "E-on" in the film) is more than just another hot chick in tight leather like Hally Berry's Catwoman, or Carrie-Ann Moss' "Trinity" in The Matrix Trilogy. Aeon Flux is highly skilled all on her own, without the need of computer programs or sex appeal (although she does have much of the latter), and she only lives to fulfill her mission. Theron really shows off her amazing versatility as a actress here, considering the other roles she has played which weren't quite so action-oriented (and considering she injured her neck during filming a stunt, halting production by a month).

What I found the most amazing about this film is the incredible direction and creativity that director Karyn Kusama brings to it. She has only directed one other film (Girlfight - a movie I had never heard of until now), so I am really taken back by how much skill she has.

For instance, most futuristic films feel too familiar. Even Star Trek, set centuries into the future, still feels like it only takes place maybe 100 years from now at the most (aside from the whole "beam me up, Scotty" thing). In this film the future is portrayed as quite foreign to 21st century viewers. The way technology works and society thrives is very bizarre, so much so that only some things are immediately recognizable (like human beings themselves, the English language, etc.), while other things don't make much sense until you pay closer attention. Maps are embedded into the skin, and they don't even look like maps. Bombs can come in the form of many marble-sized balls that roll around and unify to create an explosion, all of which are controlled by someone whistling. Blades of grass spring up tiny lethal knives for security purposes. The Monicans commune through telepathy and some little woman called "Handler" (Frances McDormand) inside their heads. One can even surgically replace one's feet with hands, as Aeon's close Monican friend Sithandra (Sophie Okonedo) did.

Yes, the future is quite weird, but that's what makes this film work so well. Our way of life now, and the technology we have would look quite strange to someone from the 10th century, for example. It only makes sense that the future portrayed in Flux doesn't make total sense to our 21st century perceptions at first.

This movie has a warped, but familiar feel - characteristics any sci-fi fan would love. It's not dark and gritty, but simply unusual and ominous in the concepts it portrays. Charlize Theron doesn't give us an Oscar-worth performance this time around, nor do any of the other actors. However, they were real enough for the film to be believable, and that's what counts in sci-fi.

If this film does not do well, it's only because the title looks like an anagram, it surprisingly did not screen early for critics, and Harry Potter, Aslan and King Kong all have her cornered this Christmas season. I'm afraid that with all the amazing skill Aeon has, she'll probably be no match for them at the box office. But don't let the hype of those other films shy you away from this film. Flux is probably just as entertaining.

Boy, was I ever wrong when I first judged what little I saw of Johnny Depp's (Pirates of the Caribbean, Finding Neverland) portrayal of Willy Wonka in the previews for this film. Even though it was different from Gene Wilder's portrayal in the 1971 version (titled Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory), Depp ends up giving one of the most enjoyable and funny performances of his career. Because of director Tim Burton's (Sleepy Hollow, Big Fish) outstanding reputation in working with Depp, it allowed for Depp to be able to deliver a gratifying spin on Wonka's character that truly captivates the audience. Add to that the fact that it stays much closer to the book by Roald Dahl, and you've got something that'll last forever.

In the film, Freddie Highmore (Finding Neverland) plays Charlie Bucket, an innocent and selfless boy who lives in a little old lopsided house with his parents and grandparents from both sides of the family. They're so impoverished that they only have enough money to buy him one Wonka chocolate bar once a year for his birthday. So when Willy Wonka decides to give out five golden tickets wrapped inside of five Wonka bars scattered throughout the world for a tour of his secret chocolate factory, Charlie looks forward to his next birthday more than any of the others before it.

After getting chocolate for his birthday, and Grandpa Joe (played by David Kelly of Waking Ned Devine) coughing up dough for another - Charlie, while grateful for the chocolate, does not get a golden ticket. As three times is usually a charm, Charlie finds a ten dollar bill in the snow and buys one more chocolate bar and ends up being the last child in the world to find a golden ticket. Along with snobby rich girl Veruca Salt (Julia Winter), German choc-o-holic Augustus Gloop (Philip Wiegratz), smart-mouth Mike Teavee (Jordan Fry) and gum-chewing champion Violet Beauregarde (Annasophia Robb) - Charlie enters the factory with the four other lucky, but undeserving winners. Little do they know what wonders (and dangers) lie ahead - let alone how fun it is for the audience to enjoy it all.

While the visuals in the Gene Wilder version were great for the time, we're treated to a much bigger and more epic version of the factory in this film. Updated with modern CGI and effects, we're given greater visuals of such things as optical illusions, a flying glass elevator that can go any direction, vast passageways, chocolate waterfalls, eatable landscapes, trained squirrels, and even "Fudge Mountain" (literally the size of a real mountain that lies underneath a real sky contained within the factory somehow).

This film shows us that Willy Wonka's chocolate factory is not constrained by the various laws of reality. It's a fantasy world that's isolated from the outside world - which is sort of a skewed reality in and of itself, with such things as Wonka building a chocolate palace overseas, or the existence of "Loompa Land" and its strange little inhabitants. Burton directs the picture so that we just accept the reality in which we're given, and that's what makes this film work.

The Oompa Loompas, who work for Wonka in exchange for wages consisting of coca-beans, are a delight to observe. They're all played by one man (Deep Roy), an already vertically-challenged actor who is digitally duplicated and shrunk to look extra tiny for the film. The Oompa Loompas treat us to wonderfully humorous and witty musical numbers that make us giggle with glee. Who would've thought that Roy, who played a quiet circus performer in Big Fish, could be so funny, imitating various "Esther Williams" swimming moves, or mimicking rock bands like The Beatles and Kiss. This is by far the most entertaining aspect of the film.

Thanks to a wonderfully adapted screenplay by John August (Big Fish), this version gives us not only an updated look for the story and funny Oompa Loompas, but also provides an amusing back story of Wonka and the factory, and insight as to why Willy Wonka is sort of two fries short of a Happy Meal. Willy Wonka is a seriously disturbed individual in this film, socially awkward and kind of rude. But while Gene Wilder simply was the way he was in the 1971 film without any explanation, this one actually goes deep into Wonka's childhood and his relationship with his father (played by Christopher Lee of The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars series) and gives us an explanation. This ultimately paves the way for a beautiful ending in which Wonka actually learns a valuable lesson from Charlie.

Not much fault can be found with the film. It may err a bit in that while titled "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," the story tends to shift focus much more onto Willy Wonka's character journey than on Charlie's. While I can't say if that's closer to the book, it is such an intriguing journey that audiences really don't seem to mind. Johnny Depp is always a pleasure to watch in any film he's in, so we just have grown accustomed to him being in the spotlight. And perhaps Charlie, while still a kid, has already been on the journey because of his excursion through poverty and it's now his turn to help someone else in need.

Does it top the original? In many ways, yes it does. It's much closer to the book according to Burton, and now we know why Willy Wonka is so loopy. Johnny Depp delivers one of the funniest performances of his career, and just like in Finding Neverland, he and Freddie Highmore have great chemistry together on screen. This movie is a treat for all ages - one that is funny and entertaining and stands above the original film as yet another great cinematic achievement for Tim Burton.

Just when we thought we had enough suspense this year with the airline thriller Red Eye, along comes another that brings some heavy competition. Hitchcock fans will be delighted to know that German director Robert Schwentke has made a movie with a story just about as good as some of Hitchcock's - one that keeps them on the edge of their seats, and seems to keep the guessing game going until the end.

Jodie Foster (Panic Room) plays Kyle Pratt, an airplane designer whose husband apparently fell off their roof and died recently. She and her daughter, Julia (Marlene Lawston), are relocating from Germany to New York City, having to transport her deceased husband with them on board a massive double-decker airplane she designed. Kyle has been having a few delusions of her husband still being alive, but she always comes to her senses and realizes that he's not. But when she falls asleep during the flight and wakes up to find her daughter missing, she becomes alarmed and proceeds to look for Julia.

How many places could she be, right? That's the question everyone on board is asking. But when the Captain (Sean Bean) finds out that no one saw Kyle's daughter on board, that she's been through a lot of stress, and her daughter's boarding pass cannot be accounted for - he starts to think Kyle is mentally disturbed. As the flight goes on, he is informed that Julia apparently died along with Kyle's husband - pointing to what looks like a troubled marriage and a suicidal husband taking their daughter with him off the roof. Is Kyle imagining her daughter is still alive too? The entire crew and all the passengers seem to think so, particularly one man named Carson (Peter Sarsgaard, The Skeleton Key), who proceeds to ask all the hard questions that she doesn't want to hear.

Even though 99% of the movie takes place on board an airplane, the film never ceases to entertain. Foster gives us a riveting performance, making sure we can see the passionate look in her eyes that she is absolutely convinced her daughter is alive and that she's willing to go to great lengths to find her. She tackles an Arab man, breaks airline rules, enters restricted areas, etc. She drools, she claws...well not really. But she's definitely one mother you don't want to mess with.

This film does a good job at depicting the post 9/11 atmosphere one gets when riding an airplane, everything from undercover air marshals to passengers being wary of Arabs. It also reminds us of how annoying airplane flights can be, with hyperactive kids acting up right in front of you, or snobby passengers who say things like, "It's not like she lost her Palm Pilot." By the middle of the film, most of the passengers are just as patronizing, as they clap when Kyle is escorted back to her seat after causing a stir.

It has its share of unique cinematography, with obscure camera angles (like a sideways shot beneath an airplane landing), but other seemingly pointless slow-motion shots that don't add much to the scene. But most of that doesn't really take away from the story and the wonderful performances the actors give.

The movie does raise a few unanswered questions (ones I can't ask here without spoiling the plot), but they're easily forgivable. Is the film really that good? Well, it depends on how one views it. If one is expecting an original story, he/she will likely come out disappointed. However, it remains enjoyable if one just sees it simply as a story that, while not original, is a story well-told.

Dan Geer MovieLegacy.com

What happens when innocence gets corrupted? When goodness is taken over by a tragic evil? You get Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen), and his transformation into the pop culture iconic villain known to virtually everyone in the world as "Darth Vader."

In Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, audiences will finally experience Anakin's inevitable destiny. Here we find out that he has become a galactic hero in the eyes of the Republic, and his friendship with Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) has matured into brotherly love. He's become an even better pilot than in The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, and in the beginning of the film plays the main heroic role in rescuing the kidnapped Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) from the "clutches" of the evil Sith Lord Count Dooku (Christopher Lee) and the new cyborg leader of the Separatists, General Grievous (Mathew Wood). But when all seems well, we find out that the kidnapping, as well as the entire war was staged by the Sith Lord Darth Sidious, and throughout the rest of the film Anakin Skywalker becomes susceptible to his lies - which in turn lead him down the path of the dark side of the force.

Every Star Wars fan has wanted to see Anakin transform into Vader. We all wanted to see him and Obi-Wan become enemies. We were eager to see Padme die and the Skywalker twins birthed into existence. The birth of the Empire, the Jedi Knights getting hunted down and slaughtered and the Chancellor declaring himself Emperor were all things fans have been dreaming to see since the first original Star Wars back in 1977. We wanted all this because we know it leads us into the old Star Wars trilogy that we know and love. However, when I finally got to see this film I didn't want any of it to happen by the time it got over with. I actually cared about the relationship between Anakin and Obi-Wan to the point where it was saddening to watch them fight each other. I actually wanted Padme to live. I wanted the Emperor to get defeated. I wanted the Jedi Knights to live. I wanted Anakin to stay good. When this happened to my emotions, despite the fact that for years I wanted the dots to be connected with the old trilogy, I knew that George Lucas succeeded in telling a great story. A story that makes one go against all sense of logic, rips apart one's emotions and yet still makes the person come out loving the film in the end.

Is it perfect? Well, it's as perfect as a Star Wars film can get since none of the films have ever been known for great acting and dialog. Wooden acting and cheesy dialog is what makes Star Wars what it is. However, I felt this film had the least amount of those things. I believed the characters were real, and the situations they were going through were authentic. The movie encompassed a broad range of emotions, from fun and energetic, to sorrowful and tragic. With thrilling action and special effects, as well as a dark and harrowing story, it's engaging from start 'till finish. In my humble opinion it truly is the best of the entire six-film saga.

If you walk into this film thinking it's a thriller (which I don't blame anyone for except the people who marketed this film), you may just walk out disappointed. There aren't really that many scary things about this film. However, if you walk into it expecting quality drama, acting and storytelling, you might just find something likable about it.

M. Night Shyalmalan (director of "The Sixth Sense," "Unbreakable," and "Signs,") brings us an intriguing period piece about love, jealousy, and how far people are willing to go when driven by fear.

An "Amish" type community resides in an isolated village surrounded by a forest with a dark history. They fear "those they do not speak of" who dwell in the woods, and dare not cross their path. But when a dire need of medicine from the towns beyond the woods emerges, one blind woman dares to face the dark in order to bring back the light.

The film has an interesting (and creepy) atmosphere to it - a characteristic few movies these days are able to accomplish. One particular shot that comes to mind is between the two main characters, Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix) and the blind woman Ivy Walker (Bryce Dallas Howard), when they're talking on the porch. It's a close-up profile shot of them talking, and in between their faces you see a gray fog covering the vast field in front of them - making the audience wonder what's out there watching them. It really symbolizes that not everything may be as it seems.

The performances given by William Hurt(AI: Artificial Intelligence), Bryce Dallas Howard, and Joaquin Phoenix really make this film stand on firm ground. But perhaps the most interesting character is that of Noah Percy, played by Adrien Brody (The Pianist). He plays a mentally-challenged, and sometimes unstable man who happens to be in love with Ivy Walker. When he finds out that she's in love with Lucius Hunt, his unstable characteristics really start to take hold of him (as well as creep out the audience).

If this were the first film from Shyamalan, it would be critically acclaimed. But since this is his fourth major film, and Shyamalan is now known for putting plot twists in his stories, people go into it immediately starting to second-guess everything they observe. So many people would probably figure out the twist long before the film ends because they're already looking for it. Either that, or they spend the whole film waiting in anticipation for it, only to be let down because they built it up to be the Second Coming. They remember how cool it was to discover what really happened to Bruce Willis' character in "The Sixth Sense." But they forget that, at that time, they had never seen a film quite like it before. They had no preconceived notions or expectations.

As much as I enjoyed "The Village," I think Shyamalan should stop making films with plot twists for a while and just make some good movies with good stories. And he should not hype it up by advertising it as "An M. Night Shyalmalan Film." That name is now immediately connected with plot twists and thrillers whenever someone sees it. Otherwise, he may very well come to be known as "M. Night Shyamalamadingdong."

OK, let me first say that the first "Matrix" film is a crowning achievement. It stands on its own, and can appeal to most mainstream audiences. Most anyone can understand the plot.

With Reloaded, however, people didn't really understand it. But they figured, "Hey, there's a third one coming out, so it'll all become clear when I see that one." So because of this thinking, most peoples' first impression of Reloaded wasn't negative. And first impressions usually stick. They just brushed off all of the convoluted plot and enjoyed it for what it is, expecting the third one to offer clearer explanations. And so because Revolutions didn't offer any clear answers, Reloaded is looked at as the better of the two sequels by most people.

I think that's a pretty unfair observation myself. Both films are equally convoluted in my opinion. But the third in a trilogy is usually meant to give closure, and for many it did not succeed. Reloaded did not have that obligation, thus it's looked at in a better light than Revolutions is.

But I find that the answers ARE in Revolutions, however vague they are. If one understands what Revolutions was really all about, then people should at least see both sequels in an equal light. They'll not only like Revolutions, but they'll also enjoy Reloaded even more than before - now that they actually get what's going on.

My personal opinion is that Reloaded is the weakest of the trilogy. I think it's good, but because of that 5 minute party/orgy/sex scene that totally stopped the movie in its tracks, and too much dialogue at times, I rate it lower than the rest. And I liked the action in Revolutions much better (although the highway chase and the Neo/Smith burly brawl in Reloaded are definitely cool). "The Matrix" is a 10, "The Matrix Reloaded" is an 8, and "The Matrix Revolutions" is a 9.

For further info on the plot of the trilogy, check out www.thematrix101.com . I found it to be really good at helping me understand the films more, since I was also someone who found them too convoluted at first. Once the plots became clear, I came to really love these films. I hope that you'll do the same, because there's a lot more there besides kung fu fights and war scenes. I think you'll find that the Wachowski brothers didn't sacrifice substance for style after all.

OK, let me first say that the first "Matrix" film is a crowning achievement. It stands on its own, and can appeal to most mainstream audiences. Most anyone can understand the plot.

But with "Reloaded" and especially "Revolutions," even the most hardcore sci-fi fans who usually get these kinds of films walked out of the last two scratching their heads. When walking out of "Reloaded," they assumed that they'd get clearer answers in "Revolutions," so most people cut "Reloaded" some slack (even though it's just as convoluted as "Revolutions"). This is why "Revolutions" is the most maligned Matrix film. The plots of the sequels was just too convoluted for mainstream audiences, and "Revolutions" didn't offer the clear explanations audiences were looking for.

They couldn't figure out why Neo had power outside the Matrix. Why could he stop Sentinels by thinking it? Why could he still see after being blinded by Bane, and see in a different way for that matter? The first film established how to get power within the Matrix, but that outside of the Matrix he was just another ordinary, but machine-engineered human being. So what was all this about?

Why was Bane also Smith? How could Smith be in the real world in someone's body?

How did Neo separate his mind from his body and end up at the Train Station place? What IS the Train Station?

What was the deal with the family of programs at the Train Station who were smuggling their daughter out? What specifically was Sati all about? They sort of make a big deal of her, especially at the end.

Why did the Oracle's appearance change (aside from the original actress dying before the third film was made)?

How exactly was Smith destroyed in the end? How exactly was peace made between the Machines and Man? Why not just have a plot where they destroy the Matrix?

What was the Merovingian (the French Man) all about? What was his purpose?

What was Seraph all about?

Zion was destroyed 5 times before without the Zion peoples' knowledge? How is that possible? Why did it occur? How and why were there 5 "Ones" before Neo?

Getting the answers to these questions is imperative to enjoying the plot. And yet, the answers are very, very vague in the film. So because of that, most people just thought that the Wachowski Brothers copped out and made a special effects film that's all style and no substance.

But the answers are there, and if one thinks about it, the film makes perfect sense. They just don't shove it all in your face like we're used to seeing with most films. So if one can actually grasp what the directors were trying to convey in the plot, for me anyway, becomes a much more enjoyable piece of cinema.

I won't go into answering all the questions above, but if you check out www.thematrix101.com , you'll find mostly what is needed to enjoy the plot.

Get over your first impression of the film if it was negative and check out that website for some answers. Perhaps if you understand the film, you might like it after all.

I actually didn't even know about this film, let alone not knowing its ties to the Universal Studios' Invisible Man series. I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. Sure, it's not Claude Rains' "The Invisible Man" film, or even Vincent Price's "The Invisible Man Returns." It's not really even a horror film. But this movie had a pretty decent story.

It was about a man who is the grandson of the original Invisible Man They referred to the original as "Frank Griffen" in this story, but the original was actually named "Jack Griffen," and his brother was named Frank in "The Invisible Man Returns." Why they were inconsistent, I'm not sure. Anyhow, the grandson gets offered a fortune to sell his grandfather's secret formula to the Nazis, but refuses and goes undercover as a spy for the United States using the formula to spy on the Nazis to find out their plan of attack on the U.S. Very good plot.

With some good special effects and some great, the technical aspects of this film were at least just as good as the previous films. We even got some good warfare explosions. And the story was definitely enjoyable. So despite inconsistencies with previous Invisible Man films, this film is definitely worth a look.

I understand that the Jack the Ripper story involves prostitutes. So there's going to have to be sexual references. But any movie can convey the idea of prostitution without showing what goes on during prostitution. All we need to see is the woman hitting on the guy, and her taking him off to some place alone. We don't need to see a woman giving a guy a hand job and him banging her into a fence. We don't need to see what goes on in the bedroom. We don't need to see sickly "girl-kissing-girl" crap. The idea of prostitution can be conveyed much more subtlety, which in my opinion would be more effective in this film since it's not a film about prostitution. It's a film about Jack the Ripper who kills prostitutes. Showing so many sexual obscenities didn't help the film. It just made it disgusting to watch.

I did like the actual story when it actually got around to telling it about a half hour or so into it (after the first half hour being basically a tame porno flick). I like how they involved the Freemasons, and how we eventually came to understand who Jack the Ripper was and why he was the way he was. Johnny Deep and Heather Graham were good in this film. The story had a decent mystery to it that at least kept me watching until the end to see the mystery solved...

...but the film was just too hard to watch with all the obscenity in it, and I don't think I'll ever watch it again. It's too bad, because it really had the potential of being a great film had it not been directed by a couple of perverts.

...Most of the time, the type of comedies we get are teen comedies that pretty much only focus on sexual topics. Not my cup of tea. It's just not funny.

But here, we have a brilliantly funny comedy about a black man mentally stuck in the 70s who's out their protecting racial equality. We also have "The Brotherhood," a secret organization doing the same thing, consisting of mostly blacks. But they stress the message that you just have to be "down" to be in the brotherhood, and you don't have to be black. At first, it seems like only blacks are welcome. But then they realize that working as an equal team is how the job should really be done, regardless of one's race. So this movie has a good message, despite all the racial jokes.

But enough of that. This movie is hilarious! The jokes they make about both black culture and white culture kept me laughing all the way through. You can't take it too seriously. If you do, getting offended will come with the territory for you, and that's not what this movie is about. What goes through my head when the jokes are cracked is, "That's exactly how it is!" And I'm a white guy.

Sure, a lot of the jokes are ones that have been used before. But the WAY they're used in this movie and the creativity behind it all is what made me laugh.

So if you don't get offended easily by culture jokes, and you're in the mood to laugh a lot, this movie is for you.

I just saw this movie for the first time on DVD. As a whole, this movie has amazing cinematography and creativity. It's a cool homage to old spaghetti westerns, Japanese samurai, anime, etc. I borrowed it from a friend, but I can see myself owning it since I like those kinds of films with over the top violence. You can't take it too seriously, because it's not done realistically, and it's fake from the get-go. That's part of its charm.

On the other hand, Quentin Tarantino tends to use overly crass subject matter and language just for the sake of being crass. Fans of Tarantino would probably say, "What do you expect? It's Quentin Tarantino!" But I say, why is it needed? This movie was already good, and stuff like that doesn't enhance the plot. I don't mind movies that have some language and/or crass subject matter if it's done tastefully and at a bare minimum. But the way Tarantino does it is just jarring. It stops the movie and prevents the plot from moving forward when it should. There's just too much language at times(and it's always the worst words used), and that scene with the two guys either raping or wanting to rape Black Mamba while she was in a coma is just sick. Granted, they didn't show anything (thank God), but their choice of words during that dialog that went on between them was just unsettling and it's something I'd rather not hear about. The subject is crass on its own, so it didn't even need that 5 minute bit of dialog with them talking about it. I have yet to find a good reason for that scene to even be there. It didn't enhance the plot at all. I'm absolutely positive that this scene, as well as most of the language could've been omitted and the film would've still be great(probably better). Scenes like this, and over the top bad language insult my intelligence. The movie is perfectly fine without all that. Sorry if I have morals (actually, I'm not sorry), but some things are just better left out.

Thankfully, most of the crude language and subject matter was gone after that, and we got a magnificent blood bath of a movie with excellent choreograpy for the fight scenes, wonderful cinematography, and fun homages to Japanese samurai movies, anime, spaghetti westerns, etc. The plot was clever and witty when the movie actually focused on the plot.

My Rating: 8/10

Let me first say that I'm a huge fan of the old 1930's and 40's Universal monsters. My dad, who grew up on those films, introduced them to me when I was pretty young. Bela Lugosi's Dracula, Boris Karloff's Frankenstein monster, and Lon Chaney Jr.'s Wolf Man were some of my favorites (along with the Invisible Man and The Mummy).

So when I heard about Van Helsing, and saw the previews, I was excited. I knew Steve Sommers loved those old movies. And judging from what we got with his "Mummy" flicks a few years back, I was expecting Van Helsing to be the same kind of film: An updated version of old monsters with a roller-coaster ride plot. Well that's what we got, but it wasn't as good as Sommer's Mummy films.



First of all, their were some plot problems. There's a scene where Van Helsing's horse carriage with six horses pulling it along jumps a broken bridge over a huge ravine that they never would've made it over if actual laws of gravity were applied. It almost looked like the horses were flying like Santa's reindeer. It reminded me of when the bus jumped an incomplete highway in "Speed." Never would happen. OK, the carriage didn't quite make it over. It crashed onto the edge of the other side of the ravine. But neither the horses nor Van Helsing should've made it across. Not only that, but they were a decoy, so ANOTHER six horse carriage was behind them carrying the passengers they were trying to save, while Van Helsing was actually a diversion for possible vampires on the road. So they must have ALSO jumped the same impossible jump as Van Helsing did! And their carriage DID make it! Either that, or there was another complete bridge somewhere else. But even then, the timing would be near impossible for the real carriage to end up pretty much right behind Van Helsing's carriage to help him out.

Second, Van Helsing gets bitten by a the Wolf Man, thus he has to become a werewolf himself during the next full moon at midnight. OK cool. However, a plot point that's never really established well is that supposedly the only way to kill Dracula (not vampires in general, but just Dracula) is by a werewolf killing him. This is something new in Vampire lore, since usually Dracula (as well as any other vampire) could be killed by driving a steak through his heart and chopping his head off, or by burning his coffin. So since in this movie it's established that the only way is by a werewolf, they need to tell us WHY. Whenever introducing a new plot point, it must be defined. If it was the usual steak through the heart thing, I'd buy it since that's been in Vampire lore forever. But alas, this is not the case. I can buy that Dracula has to be killed a different way than other vampires because he's the most powerful of them all. He gave his soul directly to the devil to make himself a vampire, whereas all others are just turned into one by being bitten by another vampire. But giving no explanation for a new method of killing him was a mistake.

Another minor flaw was that when Dracula confronts Van Helsing for a duel, it conveniently turns midnight and the full moon comes into view. It would be fine if we were given more of a countdown during scenes. But the way the movie portrays it, it's by happy chance that it conveniently turns midnight just as Dracula confronts Van Helsing for a duel.

Lastly, the CGI. Now, I'm a firm supporter of CGI, and I think it's a great tool. So it really takes a lot for me to actually criticize it. Steven Sommers tends to use CGI in unnecessary places. And in this movie, not only does he do that, but the CGI itself is rendered poorly. The Mr. Hyde character at the beginning suffered from what the "Hulk" suffered from as a CGI character. It just looked fake and cartoony. I hate saying that, because a lot of CGI in films like Lord of the Rings, the Jurassic Park series and the Star Wars films look great and are very convincing. But in "Van Helsing," the Mr. Hyde character just didn't look real. His character was done better in "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" (which I thought was cool), because they used actual prosthetics and just blue screened him onto the frames with other characters to make him look huge. Much more convincing. This is the way he should've been done for Van Helsing. CGI should only be used when there's no other convincing way to do the effect one is trying to achieve. And if it's used, it should be given the same care that was given to Gollum in LOTR, the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, or the CGI aliens in the Star Wars films. Those creatures and effects were convincing. Hyde was not.

Well, enough of the flaws. This movie was fun. The overall plot was cool. David Wenham's friar character was great comic relief. The CGI for the Wolf Man and the vampire effects was done pretty well. The atmosphere was very dark and moody. The Frankenstein monster was done right. He was the best character in the film. Thankfully, his character was created with prosthetic make-up. If he was done in CGI and only given the amount of care that was given to Mr. Hyde, he would've suffered the same fate of looking fake. Dracula's character was cool. I loved how him and his brides walked on the walls and the ceilings. He even had the romanian accent, which was a nice touch. I also like the ballroom scene. It's filled with people, and we see Dracula dancing with Anna Valerious amidst the crowd. There's a big mirror they look into while dancing, and she's the only one visible. Suddenly we realize that the room is filled with vampires since no one else casts a reflection! That was a nice touch. Lastly, I loved the opening scene with Dr. Frankenstein screaming "It's alive, ALIVE!" That scene was filmed in black and white, and it even had the monster rushing up into a windmill with angry villagers with torches burning it down just like the old classics!

So overall, I give this film a 6 out of 10. It was fun, but definitely flawed.

Another cool atmospheric vampire film that's a sequel to Dracula and Dracula's Daughter, but can stand alone since there's no reference to the previous films.

Lon Chaney Jr. plays the Son of Dracula. He's ok as Dracula, but much better as the Wolf Man. Anyhow, He travels under the alias "Count Alucard" (Dracula spelled backwards) to America to marry a woman who is secretly just trying to gain eternal life so that she can spread it to her real love interest who she was supposed to marry in the first place.

This is a pretty original story. And it's the only one of the Universal classic Dracula films where we actually see the vampires turn into mist, and the first one where we actually SEE Dracula turn into a bat. I like this film.

There's an on going debate as to whether the Dracula in this film is supposed to be the same Dracula that Bela Lugosi played. I disagree. The reasons being because we saw Bela Lugosi's Dracula killed and burned in the previous two films. And the vampire expert in Son of Dracula, Dr. Lazlo, said that this one is probably a descendant of the original Dracula. Lastly, I think the title says it all - although there are people who seem to think that this is just a common sequel title used back then and is not meant to be taken literally. But it was taken literally with Son of Frankenstein, and this is a follow up to "Dracula's DAUGHTER" (who really WAS his daughter) so... But anyway, on the back of the video case, it says that Lon Chaney is playing the son of Dracula. So I don't think it can be more clearer that the Dracula we see in Son of Dracula IS the SON of Dracula like the title suggests.

In the end, this film is worth watching if you can take it in its historical context. Otherwise you won't enjoy this film, because it's not up to today's standards of horror. But for the time period, this film was a good horror film.

8 out of 10.

In this sequel to Bela Lugosi's "Dracula," the story takes place right where we left off, right down to police walking into Dracula's castle to find Van Helsing (still played by Edward Van Sloan) and the murdered Dracula corpse, and Renfield at the bottom of the long staircase.

Countess Zeleska (Dracula's daughter) comes into play when she visits her father's corpse and steals it to go and burn it to release herself from the same vampire curse. Turns out it doesn't work, and she goes for more victims. But in the meantime, she seeks help from a psychiatrist.

This film is more about Zeleska seeking help and trying to overcome her curse than it is about her going out for victims. But it's still an interesting story, and still very atmospheric. It has a great ending too.

Movies like these don't usually appeal to young audiences though, simply because they're used to today's standards of horror and are unable look at films like this in their historical context, therefore not enjoying them. But films like these were scary for their time, and that's what counts. They still creep me out.

9 out of 10.

This film is usually regarded by most monster fans as being better than the first Frankenstein film. I think it's just as good, but not better.

I think that while this film was incredible with showing the emotional side of the monster, the first movie was more scary than this one. I think the choice of music could've been more eerie. But the story and characters are probably better in this one.

My favorite moments are where the monster finds his first friend (the blind man), and when he "kills" himself in the end. Both times, he sheds a tear. That was powerful.

The bride is credited with a question mark in both the beginning and end, but she's Elsa Lanchester - the same person who plays Mary Shelley in the beginning of the film. She, along with Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi, created one of the most iconic images in horror film history.

10 out of 10.

This is a classic monster tale of a scientist who goes mad with the idea of playing God, and regrets it after the fact. Back when this film came out, this was pretty controversial - which is sort of why Edward Van Sloan comes out from behind a curtain at the beginning of the film and warns the audience (although is is mostly just for building the mood).

Anyhow, Boris Karloff IS the Frankenstein monster. Other actors that played him were okay, but Boris is the best. Him, along with Bela Lugosi's Dracula, created two of the most iconic horror images of all time.

The story is very good, and scary for the time. I recently watch this one back to back with "The Bride of Frankenstein," and I can't decide which one's better. This one is more scary I think, but "Bride" is more in touch with the monster's personal and emotional side.

This is a great, classic horror film that still holds up well if you look at it in its historical context. For the serious horror fan, this is a must see. For the fans of "Young Frankenstein," you MUST watch this and "Bride" to truly understand where Mel Brooks was coming from when he made that film.

Overall, 10 out of 10.

Only this film and Nosferatu have achieved what a true vampire film should achieve. I can't put my finger on it, but I guess that it's because of the fact that rather showing everything, they suggest it - like when Dracula goes for his victims. It always fades out or happens out of the view of the camera.

Also, this film captures an atmosphere that has only been captured during this time period. Young Frankenstein got close to being a perfect representation of this atmosphere, but that was a comedy.

I don't think it would work that well with young audiences today that haven't been exposed to these old horror classics. Usually when they are exposed to movies like Dracula, they're unable look at them in their historical context, therefore not enjoying them. They may be cheesy and not really scary now. But for the time period they were released in, this was incredibly creepy and scary.

So I rate this film a 10, simply because it was top notch horror for the day, and you can't change it to make it to today's standards unless you remake the film. And hey, Bela Lugosi still freaks ME out!

This film marked the end of the "serious" Universal Monsters era (Abbott and Costello meet up with the monsters later in "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankentstein"). It was a somewhat desparate, yet fun attempt to revive the classic monsters of the Wolf Man, Frankenstein's monster, and Dracula one "last" time.

I say desparate, because in the previous film, "House of Frankenstein," both Dracula and the Wolf Man are killed according to how the vampire and werewolf legends say they should be (Dracula by the sunlight, and the wolf man by a silver bullet). Yet somehow they return in House of Dracula with no explanation. This movie could have played as a kind of prequel to House of Frankenstein if the Frankenstein monster plot wouldn't be continuing chronologically into House of Dracula from House of Frankenstein, and if the wolf man didn't get cured. Then there'd be no plot holes. But since this is not the case, the plots of Dracula and the Wolf Man make no sense.

However, ignoring these plot holes, House of Dracula is a classic atmospheric horror film that's fun to watch. It has many high points. Especially seeing the wolf man get cured. I know I just said that this shouldn't have been included, but it was nice to actually see him get cured after all this time. And the scene with the lady playing "Moonlight Senada," on the piano then all of a sudden playing a haunting melody when under Dracula's spell was very eerie. Dr. Edleman's transformation into the "Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde" type character was also done very well.

And it's great to see Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolf Man together, one "last" time.

*** out of ****

In my opinion, this movie is absolutely flawless. Never have I witnessed such a perfect movie. It doesn't get any better than this, nor will it ever again.

But some people still think there are flaws.

Well, I suppose people are entitled to be wrong.

The long ending needs to be the way it is. Not just because that's how the book is (actually, the book is longer at the end), but because we have to have an ending that ends the story of all the important people involved with the Ring. It is ONE ending, about the people involved with the ONE Ring.

The absence of Saruman. Not a flaw. It's about how much Peter Jackson is allowed to put in theaters. He has a time limit. Saruman's only filmed scene in the movie was 7 minutes long and all dialogue and at the beginning of the movie. That's seven minutes that we could be getting on to more important things. Let's face it: Saruman is not the main bad guy. Sauron is. Saruman was defeated at Isengard by the Ents, because Isengard itself was destroyed and his army was destroyed at Helm's Deep. He is now imprisoned inside his tower to live in misery. He got what he deserves. Now it's time to deal with the real bad guy.

It's also kind of a chance for redemption for Saruman. Remember, he was once good. He only turned evil because he was corrupted by his lust for the ring. But even so, he DOES get the torture he deserves. Death is too good for him. Let him rot. So what if we don't see him? Besides, he will be in the extended version released later next year.

This is truly a great film. After it was over, I thought I was dreaming because movies are never THIS good. A lot are really great and all, but none come even close to how good this one is. Nor will they ever. It's absolutely incredible, and no complement I give it will do the movie justice. It's untouchable, and will go down in film history as the greatest film of all time.

...of course, my expectations were not that it was going to be better or even as good at T2. There was just no way that would happen. So I was expecting it to be as good as Demolition Man or something(which I thought was just ok).

Turns out, T3 was way better than Demolition Man! And I personally thought it was as good as the first Terminator movie.

We had awesome action sequences(especially the chase with the crane!), witty one-liners(which every Arnold movie MUST have!), and a decent plot that didn't seem as depressing as one would think it would be. Nick Stahl was great as John Conner. He's a better actor than Edward Furlong, although he doesn't look much like what Eddy looks like. Claire Daines' character was a good new character too. The T-X was the hottest robot I've ever seen, and she was one tough machine! But I'm glad they didn't make a big deal out of her, and focused more on the plot of judgement day.



And the twist of the T-800(Arnold) killing John Connor in the future, as well as judgement day actually happening sets us up for a great new kind of new Terminator movie for T4(if it gets made), because it could take place in a post-apocolyptic world with the human surviors battling against the machines. It wouldn't be the classic "good terminator gets sent back in time to protect Connor/bad terminator gets sent back in time to kill Connorz" scenario. It could be taken to a whole other level because of the plot of T3!

Good movie, great set up for T4!

[END SPOILER]

In my opinion, this movie is absolutely flawless. Never have I witnessed such a perfect movie. It doesn't get any better than this, nor will it ever again.

But some people still think there are flaws.

Well, I suppose people are entitled to be wrong.

The long ending needs to be the way it is. Not just because that's how the book is (actually, the book is longer at the end), but because we have to have an ending that ends the story of all the important people involved with the Ring. It is ONE ending, about the people involved with the ONE Ring.

The absence of Saruman. Not a flaw. It's about how much Peter Jackson is allowed to put in theaters. He has a time limit. Saruman's only filmed scene in the movie was 7 minutes long and all dialogue and at the beginning of the movie. That's seven minutes that we could be getting on to more important things. Let's face it: Saruman is not the main bad guy. Sauron is. Saruman was defeated at Isengard by the Ents, because Isengard itself was destroyed and his army was destroyed at Helm's Deep. He is now imprisoned inside his tower to live in misery. He got what he deserves. Now it's time to deal with the real bad guy.

It's also kind of a chance for redemption for Saruman. Remember, he was once good. He only turned evil because he was corrupted by his lust for the ring. But even so, he DOES get the torture he deserves. Death is too good for him. Let him rot. So what if we don't see him? Besides, he will be in the extended version released later next year.

This is truly a great film. After it was over, I thought I was dreaming because movies are never THIS good. A lot are really great and all, but none come even close to how good this one is. Nor will they ever. It's absolutely incredible, and no complement I give it will do the movie justice. It's untouchable, and will go down in film history as the greatest film of all time.

In my opinion, this movie is absolutely flawless. Never have I witnessed such a perfect movie. It doesn't get any better than this, nor will it ever again.

But some people still think there are flaws.

Well, I suppose people are entitled to be wrong.

The long ending needs to be the way it is. Not just because that's how the book is (actually, the book is longer at the end), but because we have to have an ending that ends the story of all the important people involved with the Ring. It is ONE ending, about the people involved with the ONE Ring.

The absence of Saruman. Not a flaw. It's about how much Peter Jackson is allowed to put in theaters. He has a time limit. Saruman's only filmed scene in the movie was 7 minutes long and all dialogue and at the beginning of the movie. That's seven minutes that we could be getting on to more important things. Let's face it: Saruman is not the main bad guy. Sauron is. Saruman was defeated at Isengard by the Ents, because Isengard itself was destroyed and his army was destroyed at Helm's Deep. He is now imprisoned inside his tower to live in misery. He got what he deserves. Now it's time to deal with the real bad guy.

It's also kind of a chance for redemption for Saruman. Remember, he was once good. He only turned evil because he was corrupted by his lust for the ring. But even so, he DOES get the torture he deserves. Death is too good for him. Let him rot. So what if we don't see him? Besides, he will be in the extended version released later next year.

This is truly a great film. After it was over, I thought I was dreaming because movies are never THIS good. A lot are really great and all, but none come even close to how good this one is. Nor will they ever. It's absolutely incredible, and no complement I give it will do the movie justice. It's untouchable, and will go down in film history as the greatest film of all time.

I saw this movie yesterday, and already I've overheard one comment from the theater I was at, as well as a comment from a workmate, who said that they were disappointed with something(s) about this movie. Whether it'd be that it didn't follow the book EXACTLY, or it just wasn't as good as the first. I understand that it doesn't follow the book exactly, but I beg to differ as far as it not being as good as the first movie.

Sure, it doesn't follow the book exactly. Neither did the last one. In fact, as far as I know, there were probably just as many differences from the book in this movie as there were in the last. For example, in the book of "The Fellowship of the Ring," Gandalf takes many years to get back to the Shire(wasn't it like 50 years?) before he tells Frodo to set off on his quest to destroy the One Ring. Also, the ENTIRE Tom Bombadil scene was cut from the movie - including the scene where they obtain the swords to kill the Nazgul where they meet the Barrow-wights (I assume that perhaps the swords that Aragorn gave the hobbits at Weathertop are the swords that kill the Nazgul, but I can't be certain). Also, dialogue was switched around from what it was in the book, like someone in the movie saying a line that was originally someone else's line in the book. Or the same person who said a line in the book says it in the movie but at a different point in the story(a.k.a. Gandalf's "all we need to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us" speech and his story of Gollum; in the book it was at Bag End, but in the movie it was in Moria.) Also, we never see Gandalf talk to Radagast the Brown (another wizard). And, Boromir dies at the end of the movie, whereas he died at the beginning of the second book. Lastly, they never expanded on the fact that Merry and Pippin knew about the One Ring before they found out that Frodo had it, and also they never went to Farmer Maggot's house. And I know there were more changes.

And what changes were made to "The Two Towers' story in the movie? Faramir was meaner, they didn't go to Gondor, we don't see Saruman wandering the woods, Elves were at Helm's Deep, Wormtongue makes it to Isengard before the Ents flooded it, Arwen was in it, Eowen went with them, and certain things were pushed back until the third movie. There were a few more, but there were not many more changes than what was done in the first film. And that's not what gets me. What gets me is that people complain about these changes, and NONE of them were bad! The movie still worked very well! It still stayed 90-95% true to the book(if you got that percentage on a term paper - that's an A grade my friends!). The only reason anyone would see these changes as bad is because <snobby, whiny & complaining voice>"It wasn't in the books!"</snobby, whiny & complaining voice>

Come on! This movie was fantastic! It's still very true to the book, Gollum was cool and funny, Gimli was hilarious, and the battles were so epic in scale it's not even funny. The Ents were just as I had pictured them - both character and visual-wise. The conflict with Frodo, Sam, and Gollum was perfect. Helm's Deep was terrific and very epic in scope. And the destruction of Isengard was just amazing. We really got a great picture.

I think ultimately when one goes to a movie and comes out loving it, they will build up the sequels to such high expectations that they end up disappointed. Why not just expect the sequels to NOT be as good, since it's impossible to capture lightning in a bottle - and then come out not so disappointed?

This movie was awesome. Just as great as the first one.

Rating: 10/10