begger

Let me start first by complimenting several things. This movie was, frankly, beautifully drawn. Every shot was full of such amazing detail that at times it became difficult to tell the difference between the animated and the actual footage that appears randomly throughout the film.

The sword fighting was very cool as well.

And that's about all I can say that is positive about "Samurai X". I watched the English-dubbed version, something I would never do normally except a friend of mine who loved the movie insisted. I feel that they may have hired some of the worst voice actors ever to speak these lines. Almost anything said by the main character came off as sounding like he was an idiot or reading off a page. It wasn't just Kenshin who suffered from this ailment. It seemed that many of the characters could not speak a believable sentence if their lives depended on it.

The characters themselves were another huge problem. With Kenshin I just couldn't buy his motives. The movie went on and on and on trying to prove to him that killing was not the way to do things. He continues to think this way throughout, however, and his utter lack of character development made his "suck"-meter inflate beyond all expectations.

The cast seemed to leave suddenly at random points. For example his "mentor" who we see for a mere 5 minutes, vanishes entirely from the story. Why didn't Kenshin get a better character? Because he, as well as everyone else, was horribly underdeveloped. It ended up that I couldn't care who lived and died and spent much of my time awaiting the next sword fight.

The fighting was frequent and bloody, a good combination for a movie whose script was rotten. This and the amazing imagery was "Samurai X"'s saving graces because it was severely lacking in so many parts. The story was simple, and simply predictable, another one of the things in the movie that revolted me.

I wish that the talented artists who brought this alive could apply their skill to something worthwhile, such as a sequel to "Noir"...

"Do you ever feel evil?"

This line was not in "Spider-Man"(2002). It is taken from another of Sam Raimi's movies, "A Simple Plan"(1998). However, it applies perfectly to this movie. Sam Raimi provided us, again, with an incredible emotional palette to experience. "Spider-Man" succeeds on so many levels because it convincingly creates feelings that ring so genuinely, that emotionally viewers are captivated by this film.

I know that I was. "Spider-Man" drew me in from the opening, no nonsense, credits to the gripping finale. The conflicts, the attractions, the loss, and the incredible verve of this film all flowed together wonderfully, ultimately making one hell of a movie.

I could continue all day, describing how amazing each individual actor was, and how perfect Raimi's directing was, and how the story was the best I've seen in a comic-adaption movie ever, and, of course, the amazing special effects, but I'm not going to. "Spider-Man" stands strong without all of this well deserved praise. It does almost everything that I wish from any film, and everything that I want from an action film. In summary, "Spider-Man" is in the same field as many of the greatest films of all time.

This is my favorite film. Its deep meanings are so true and its comedy so fresh that I must give it the most prestigious position I have for a movie. And as a general warning those who dislike or only moderately like this film be prepared for a rougher time becoming my friend. I don't accept that "Groundhog Day" can be simply dismissed as a romance movie or a comedy, because it possesses a messages that are frighteningly profound and applicable to our world.

This movie is gold on so many levels and applies so perfectly to my life in almost every sequence that I am not embarrassed to say that I adore this film and am a better person due to its creation. Thank you Danny Rubin, Harold Ramis, Andie MacDowell, and, of course, Bill Murray for making this most excellent film!

"Made" is money, baby.

I put it like that because frankly when Jon Favreau and Vince Vaughn come back they're naturally compared with their first excellent production together, "Swingers". Basically their combination worked out really well there and it does again in "Made".

Because of the obvious casting and characterizations similarities what worked well in "Swingers" works well again in "Made". Both of these guys look like they've been duplicated from the former movie and brought to life again with new names and slightly different histories. Vaughn is a bit more of an ass and Favreau is a hell of a lot more built, but generally the trends that each character followed remained constant. Vaughn goes around making wise-ass comments constantly while Favreau attempts to retain some dignity by restraining Vaughn. Both are boxers in this film so their problems tended to break into humorous grapples on a pretty regular basis.

I loved "Swingers". It was quick, witty, and real. The same goes for "Made". The jokes were sharp, the situations were comical, and Vaughn's constant complaining and problems never really went over-the-top as I had feared they might when I heard he was playing the same role again. Favreau plays his part perfectly and does a great job as the narrator-esque character for Vaughn's antics.

"Made" falls a bit short in its depth of story. There weren't any major flaws or lags and it was enjoyable but there's something about the whole getting away from the old flame thing that worked well in "Swingers" and was missing in "Made". The ending of "Made" was touching, as "Swingers" was, but the character development that we witnessed in the first pass is missing this round.

But these are really minor complaints. "Made" is a different movie and because of this must make its own path. I spent a lot of time laughing out loud, something I rarely do, especially when I'm wearing headphones, which I was, and my roommates trying to sleep. I know that this review is more of a comparison but that's because I watched these movies basically back to back. In any case this is a great movie and a landmark film in dialog and conversation delivery. I toast to whomever is writing the great lines from this movie and Favreau and especially Vaughn for their excellent deliveries. Let the banter roll on! 10/10!

This haunting look at the end of humanity is unsettling, realistic, and the perfect topic for a motion picture. The makers of "On the Beach" hardly miss a mark in their sorrowful creation of a world where all humans are either dead or doomed to die. Anthony Perkins plays his role splendidly convincing me, aside from his missing accent, that he is a young hopeful Australian fated, as I can imagine myself, to die in a short while at the hands of the advancing radiation. Gregory Peck part as a Navy submarine captain seems to fit him like a glove, although his particular story interested me far less than Mr. Perkins.

What makes "On the Beach" so relevant to modern times, and perhaps all time, is the banner that the religious zealots in Australia put up towards the end of the film. I chose those chilling words to title my comment because they really are the most meaningful in the entire movie. As all characters wait for death to take them this singular image of hope swings high above a large crowd of Australians, the last people in the world. (*beware spoiler for those who have no idea what this movie is about*) Ironically this swinging banner is all that is left in an empty city at the film's close. What is it really saying? Is there still time to turn around a nuclear holocaust, one that brews between our countries even as you read this? How long will it be before terrorists are able to harness this kind of power themselves? What if they are already able to? Or do these words really mean that we have time but we choose to squander it like fools while the world slides towards destruction? The words from "Amélie" spoken by Hipolito, The Writer, seem all the more potent now that I've seen a more cryptic movie. Something to the rhyme of "not living life as a rehearsal for a play that will never be" or something like that.

In finale, "On the Beach" is chilling and hardboiled. Its shot in black and white, in a time before I was born (almost a time before my parents were born) yet its still cutting edge, both for entertainment value and for its look on life and the world. I highly recommend it to anyone who dares to stomach a possible truth. And stomach it we must, for how else can we avoid meeting this destiny for real?

When one glances over this site's page on "U-Turn" and sees the comparatively poor rating this film has gotten here it is assumed that "U-Turn" is either a near-bomb or just plain unpopular. Now some may argue that there is no difference between these positions but I beg to differ. What Mr. Stone gives to us in this picture is very different from most films but not necessarily worse.

"U-Turn" is a downer of a movie. From start to finish it is almost entirely negative. People don't like stories that end badly or never have any improvements for the characters so, I deduce, this is probably where voters and reviewers killed this film. If Dorothy had never made it back in "The Wizard of Oz" I doubt that film would have been very successful.

What makes "U-Turn" great isn't the same as what makes Mr. Stone's other films great. "U-Turn" didn't deal with politically important issues or history. Instead it gives us the best example to date of something that happens to most of us on occasion: a Bad Day. Sean Penn is thrown into another world just like the above-mentioned Dorothy. Mr. Penn's Oz, however, is a dangerously serious one. Its as though the town in "Bad Day at Black Rock" wasn't just trying to hide to truth but actively trying to kill Spencer Tracy. But that's what makes "U-Turn" great, because its so real. Sometimes it feels as if the world is caving in around us. We all have times when it feels like the apocalypse has entered the door to stay.

I don't think Oliver Stone was trying to get everyone to love "U-Turn". He did a great job making it, but destroyed all its potential success by telling the truth. The only people who can truly appreciate it are those of us who are closet sadists or those of us who can appreciate the film's message. Whether these are equal terms is another question.

Sam Neil returns. The movie is short.

That right there summarizes all of the positive aspects of this entire 'film'. Action-packed? yes. Meaningful? hell no. Dinosaurs still cool? not this time.

This plotless romp through the jungle does not need to be seen to be understood. It can be described in well less than 25 words with ease. "Cast flees through dinosaur infested island to escape". If I were to say more I might be forced to us the word "lame situations" and "poor supporting acting" in access so I won't even start.

There is one scene that really hits upon what this film is all about. It is early in the show so it won't really spoil anything. Macy's character, a rich guy apparently, is trying to motivate Dr. Grant to go with him back to the island. Macy pulls out his check book and says "Tell me, what's it gonna take?" They script writers must have been present when the cast was brought on board because I imagine a similar conversation being told to each actor/actress. "Tell me, what's it gonna take to put you in cardboard-thin roles in our sad excuse for a script?"

Unlike the original don't expect to get too attached to the characters. My comment about they shallowness is hardly a joke. When they die, unlike the first JP, I could hardly care. It is however a slight improvement over "The Lost World" where there were more bit-roles getting eaten than I could count.

My final complaint lies with the guest-stars of this movie, the dinos. In the first movie the raptors were more ambiguous. They were new and scary, the perfect combination for an enemy. They were hunters, silent trackers and killers. In JP:The Lost World they've decided that their "Rambo-esque" lifestyle had been overused in the first movie. So the raptors were demoted to packs of wolves attacking deer-like humans. But this lamer way of portraying those pesky raptors is changed again in the 3rd film. Neil opens the film by discussing about how smart he thinks the raptors are. This right off is a bad sign. It turns out he's right (surprise!) and they're the most smart monsters that has ever been brought to life. Perhaps too smart. I was happy when the beasts could open doors, but now we have them speaking German? I think we might have noticed this behavior in the first couple movies. But I guess Spielberg overlooked the fact that the Raptors talked amongst themselves about 90% of the time. If they had I can now see what Bob Peck was getting at when he said that one raptor had killed some of the other raptors. I was itching to kill them after they had finished their first couple of screeching "speeches".

Don't expect the quality of the first movie nor the intricate, yet dumb,attempt of the second. JP:III is an action film, and nothing else, a genre that I hope we'll grow out of before I'm feeding worms.

For all its length and hype "The Green Mile" falls fair short of being a great movie.

Sure the acting was superb, as well as the videography and directing, but the story and characters is why "Green Mile" is not worth my time. The characters were paper-thin and the story was bloated, unimaginitive and altogether inappropriate for a film.

"The Green Mile" should have been a TV Show and could have been a great one. A great movie? I think you should look elsewhere if that's your quest.

In many respects this movie is sheer brilliance. For starters "Kanal" describes the entire Polish Revolt in a single instance at the eve of its termination. But this movie is much more than a parable of Revolution and struggle. "Kanal" has great characters, great settings, great scenes, and, above all, an important message to be told.

What would it be like to fight an impossible battle against a larger force and be in the real world? What would it be like to face death at every turn and still travel on knowing defeat awaited you at the next bend? "Kanal" is the answer to these questions.

If anything positive should be said about "Chameleon II: Death Match" its that it IS entertaining. The cast also does a surprisingly good job of working with the B movie script. My largest complaint is that its almost a complete rip-off of classics like "Die Hard and "Predator". And Bruce Willis didn't need to be invisible to take out Hans. But however unoriginal the story is it is no worse than its predecessor its just 11 years too late...

The special effects used to make Bobbie Phillips vanish are impressive although that is basically a known element to the series. It is still impressive regardless. Also various lighting effects made this pleasurable from a tech standpoint to watch.

The formula is so used that it is painful to watch at points. The black women in charge but out of the action, the robbers who feel that they are in complete control (where do they get this idea?) and go through the process of their robbery like Hamlet making a choice, and the cliched lines make this film seem like the mother of all sequels. If it wasn't so easy to find the many parallels throughout to films I have seen before I would have no problem giving this movie higher than a 6.5 . Its unoriginality is so blatant that I am forced to hand a flat 6 to this high quality B Movie. Worth the watch if your local Video store is robbed and they leave this movie and "Water World".