jacob-216

Clint Eastwood delivers another great work. Morgan Freeman fit the part so well. But I believe two things made the movie great. Matt Damon is the first. I believe he performed at a deeper level than anything he has done, including Private Ryan or Will Hunting. The other was the setting and cinematography of it. I felt like I was really in South Africa, and experiencing the tension as well as the concealed hope of the situation. The weakest part was the music. The score was fine, but at several points music with lyrics distracted. African music was uplifting; but modern songs detracted from what was taking place.

This wasn't really a family movie, nor a sports story (although it would be good to learn a few rules of rugby if you aren't familiar with the sport). It was a true story of hurt, anger, forgiveness, and hope. "I am the master of my fate. I am the captain of my soul."

The first movie seemed to be lacking something. It was exciting, fun, creative, and even emotionally engaging. But it was still lacking that "umph". This movie was similar to the first one, except it was also lacking everything else I just mentioned.

I was much more entertained by analyzing why certain people would laugh at certain points and not at other points. The story is lame, the acting is not good, and the script is TERRIBLE. I believe that I have not seen such a poorly written piece in a long time. It created that awkward silence which every person in life hates to happen to them...multiple times throughout the movie.

HOWEVER, KIDS WILL LOVE IT. I heard them laughing throughout. I will never let my kids see this one though because, unlike the first one, it wasn't even enlightening in history. The only person I find accurately portrayed was General Custer. And I utterly hated the misrepresentation of historical figures with annoying modern phrases. When the singing cupid Jonas Brothers showed up, I lost hope for the movie. Robin Williams was a fresh breath of air in every scene he was in. Amy Adams wasn't bad, but almost over the top. The new Pharaoh guy was semi-funny, but was brought down at other times by the bad script. Ben Stiller is the "umph" missing in both movies because he won't go all out in acting as he does in his older comedies like Dodgeball.

Also, only the main plot from the first movie was the only thing that seemed to connect to the first one. Night at the Museum was a creative venture that opened up history in a new way. Battle of the Smithsonian was probably well-intended to reopen history to people and especially children. This one just seemed to fall flat on its face. Don't waste your money unless you have NOTHING better to do, have seen every movie worth seeing (start with IMDb's Top 250), or have young kids.

This is one of my favorite movies of all time. It is simple romance and adventure at its black and white best. After a lame first scene, the excitement continues throughout as injustice is battled. This movie could come across as cheesy, as some of the action is lackluster and most characters are rather one-dimensional. Yet, it holds your attention, entertains you, and might even move you as truth and justice are mistreated and evil must be righted. This movie is also almost an introduction to the characters in the more celebrated "Adventures of Robin Hood", since the characters in that are the same actors playing similar characters with similar plights. Overall, this an all-around fun movie for any classic movie fan or a family looking for good, clean entertainment.

I watched this with my little brother when I was in high school. The show came on Saturday mornings and entertained us. I still sing the theme music. As a huge Disney/Pixar fan, I love Toy Story. The concept behind this show was cool because you get to watch what Andy watched and learned to love Buzz Lightyear from. The characters are memorable (which is the most important part of any production to me). The plots are a little weird but still okay. The show succeeded enough to hold my brother's attention and mine as well. But like I said, the theme music with the announcer's voice at the beginning is second to none in an opener for a kid's show.

Okay, so I was that idiot you met way back when who was the first to tell you that Shrek 3 was coming out. I was excited and yet I was wary (as I always am for remakes and sequels). My excitement has continued until tonight (19th), my first opportunity to see the movie. The animation was great, the message was over half-decent (though not as meaningfully forward as the first two), and even the plot line wasn't too bad. However, it was still lacking the luster of the first two movies. And I must confess, much of the humor was lacking compared to the first two. (Such as the Gollum/Cinderella, Shrek talking in modern lingo, Shrek's nightmare, Merlin,etc. And why was Eric Idle's Merlin not given the opportunity to soar in his role like I know Eric Idle can?)

Also, the plot seemed to consist of way too much in-between time. This is because the makers wanted to develop way too much of a new plot and new character(s), but they depended a lot on your knowledge of the previous movies.

But I am not one to be a downer, so now I must go and tell all my friends to see it because it will still make you laugh (a lot). The animation was amazing. The familiar characters and odd friendships (i.e. Gingy, Pinocchio, Grandma Wolf and Three Little Pigs) are so developed that you do take it for granted. Several parts were still witty, like 1&2... Of course there are too many things good and bad to say so I will still recommend it to anyone who enjoyed the first two, but right now all I can remember is Gingy's hilarious flashback and that my popcorn didn't have enough butter.