hrobertsizemore

Some good conversations between the children. They also are out acting the adults.

Having a female Dr. Smith is ok but there wasn't a need for it really.

The testing of who was chosen to go is as with most large government programs is a total failure. Will Robinson has to be "cheated in" really??

As with many TV and movies the adults shouldn't be. This is a mission and you have two adults who are bickering like kids. A USMC officer might not like the Chain of Command but they would follow it. He might hate his commander but that doesn't matter. If they are a NCO the same would apply.

So based on the acting and script 1 star. The fx is good better then some recent movies.

And was there a real need for a for an African-American daughter? Would have been better to have one parent being so and all the children being so. And make make the family function vs the what is shown

Like many other remakes in the last 20 years the best version is not this one. Great vision in the film but why do directors not read the source material or view in this case the much better 1970s version. I still look forward to Death on the Nile.

This was a PC episode that someone pushed. But they should have pushed it harder. People are not taught to fight fair in the military. There are no rules in combat. Carter should have broken a finger off the first time it was stuck in her face. During the fight at the end of the show she should have broken his arm in at least one place, tore his knee out in another and slice his chin open or his mouth for good measure at the end. That would have made a statement anyone could understand. In my humble opinion men and women are not equal anymore then all women are Miss America/Wonder Woman and all men are Navy Seals/Supermen. There will always be those who excel beyond the normal no matter if they are women or men. We should all be treated as equal even if no one is equal.

While the concept grabbed my attention and I love seeing some of the faces from other shows I have never gotten past the pilot. I find the main character acting wooden and stiff. Makes you hope the Freedom Fighters or Anti-Corp Terrorist win.

I have set through the pilot twice several months apart. The CGI and special effects are pretty top notch. The concept as I said is very interesting and is probably someone take on where the world is headed. But the topic has been covered before in books and stories.

I will probably try it one more time like I said I really did want to like the show. I am amazed that the show has been on for 3 seasons. And based on other reviews it may be better now then when it started.

While there are some mistakes made in the science parts of the movie. The movie is not that bad as indicated by a large number of viewers. Having watched both Mission to Mars and Red Planet back to back thanks to the SciFi channel M2M is not as good as Red Planet. Having watched M2M 3 times now, I would recommend RP 1st. It is a nice twist of the 1950s B grade sci-fi movies.

Overall I would recommend the movie. I did enjoy Tom Sizemore and Val Kilmer. Moss's role was limited in imho and the cast was limited as it was. The movie would probably been much better if 1.) the movie had taken more time to tell the story and 2.) there had been a better job of editing.

Pros: cinema-photography, Val Kilmer, Tom Sizemore, sci-fi, Cons: Lack of character development, a few sci-fact goofs (the space fire is not a goof); film editing.

Having just finished watching "King Arthur" one day on DVD and "Troy" the next; I would vote for "King Arthur". The movie does try to give a historical basis for who Arthur was. And the movie follows closer to the older legends then Troy does. Two thumbs up for this movie.

While Brad Pitt once again did an excellent job in a less then great movie (as in "Meet Joe Black") I recommend you watch "King Arthur".

The fight scenes are worth re-watching. Arthur also used his "training" by the Romans to win his battles. For those of you who doubt the impact of heavy calvary on foot soldiers a little research will show that the heavy horse calvary (knights) were worth their weight in gold up to the time of the introduction of crossbows on a mass basis, longbows, and gunpowder.

While as in must movies there is less then historical accuracy. Crossbows have been traced back to 6th century BCE in China. The Romans knew of the crossbow but it's use was not widespread. I doubt that the Anglos or the Saxons would have had a large number of crossbows in their camps. At the Battle of Aaincourt (1415) only a few bowmen were using crossbows but close to 5,000 longbow-men were in the army.

Or maybe it was the build up-hype from everyone who had seen the movie before me. I would recommend you watch the movie but with the fast forward button at the ready. The movie is overly long. The special effects are excellent. But the story line is a bit long and a bit ragged in my opinion. But then again we are talking about a million dollar cartoon/comic hero here. I have been reading Spiderman comics since was I able to read (more years then I am putting down here) and the movie does a much better job bringing you that world (as did Spiderman I) then the HULK. But I do think the movie could have been edited down almost 30 minutes and you would not have lost any of the main points of the story. Spiderman is the peoples hero because he is a lot more like us then the Supderdude or many other heros are. Nice touch of setting up Spidey III towards the end but was this movie really better then Spiderman I? I also find it very interesting that as of to date most of the Marvel movies have made a point of staying away from the "supernatural" occult side of the comic stories. Not that this would bring that much more to the movie. My two cents watch the movie if you have not but do not be surprised that you feel like there was something missing when you finish the viewing.

What Star Wars brought to Sci-Fi and movie goers in 1977 the Matrix brought back in 1999. For a whole new generation of movie goers and for older fans of Sci-Fi The Matrix was one of those movies you go back and watch again and again. An excellent mix of technology, acting, and story. How many of us today have not felt or wondered if this is all real? Does the Matrix have you? Classic lines from the movie which ask questions on several levels.

Casting was excellent, direction was top notch, and the CGI was over the top. People will forget or have forgotten the new methods and techniques that the Matrix brought to us that we now see on TV and every other movie out on the screen today. A much better product then the next two Matrix movies. I would recommend both of those to hard-core fans of the The Matrix. So if you want a great action flick or a great action flick which will make you think the Matrix is the movie for you to watch. Now after the success or lack of success of Matrix I, II, and III will there be a Number 4? Will Neo return? In many ways I hope he does.

While the story line was typical SciFi, Walter Koenig did an excellent job breaking away from his Star Trek character. The movie is worth watching for his performance. The special effects are average but considering the films budget they are not bad. This movie could use a remake or a follow-up of what happens after the ending of the movie.

This is the movie that started me reading and watch SciFi. An outstanding soundtrack, great effects for 1951, and the acting is not bad. Good story line. This movie would make a great candidate for a 2001 remake. Lucas or Speilberg or who would be the best director?