spencerthetracy

I watched it last night. Its certainly obvious that the young Smith is growing up. He places a smile on many faces with his earnest effort. The performances of the leads are believable but there was very little chemistry between the two. He played a likeable and intelligent character and he pulls it off quite well. Cara also pulled off her role, but the role was just one more smart alec girl who is hard to get to know.

And it looks like Jaden is still learning about timing. The other characters were nice, especially his mom.

The brightest part of this movie are the kids and their performances. Very likable and relatable. And it was fairly obvious that we were looking into an aspect of the past of producer Steven Spielberg. I didn't know the plot before I showed up at the theater this morning. I didn't mind that the action took awhile to get going. We were looking at some earnest kids trying to finish their movie while dealing with a little angst and a terrific loss for the lead. After the action gets going with the monster you could really see the hand and attributes of a Spielberg production. They were all thrown in here. Not all of it made sense. For instance, the monster seemed to be alone in his fury and wrath against humans but there were attacks all over town simultaneously and continuously. Pretty busy for a single monster. And it made the action pretty unreliable. One gets used to rolling ones eyes once in a while. Toward the end I couldn't keep my eyes still.

I give the movie 6 out of 10 stars because of the charming leads but only 6 due to its need for severe belief suspension.

Its hard to generate the same great fun when you go into a whole new direction. Without the cast of characters that we had in the first three it didn't feel right. Sameness or at least familiarity is not always a bad thing. Yeah, Geoffrey Rush was here in make-up that made him less recognizable but this was Johnny Depp's movie without any doubt because he was the most recognizable face in the cast, and maybe that was the idea. Ian McShane was the perfect Blackbeard. He was Blackbeard as one would imagine him to be. The other characters we've never met before and didn't feel a whole lot for. As in the first three the FX were spectacular and maybe a little effusive. We never had this much "magic" or fantasy before but maybe that took the place of the missing familiar characters. A lot more talky than we would like. In fact it reminded me a little of Matrix Reloaded. 6 out of 10 for me because it didn't have the same sizzle as we're used to in this franchise.

I remember thinking when I was watching this movie that if someone asks me how I liked it I would tell them, "I loved every minute of it." And I did except for 3 minutes when toward the climax it became a little confusing. You'll know what I mean when you see it.

I have appreciated Kenneth Branagh's talent as an actor and director since I saw Henry V in the 80's. He has a way of telling a story that is huge and complex in a very human and personal way. And it is just like that in Thor. The images of the Heavens match the beauty that we saw in Avatar. Beautiful with deep, rich colors and scope of focus and never losing us in its sweep. The relationships that Thor has with his family are just like that with human ones. He catches Thor at the cusp of his becoming a man and ready to be knighted as king of the heavens. And like many of that age he falters and his weaknesses overcome him. But through adversity and temptation his spirit is tried and purified.

When Thor arrives at Earth, Kenneth Branagh gives us quite the humorous look at the interaction of god and beautiful woman and her colleagues. The movie has humor in abundance which is such a rarity for movies of this sort.

I gave this movie 9 out of 10 stars because in so many ways it was nearly perfect. A treat for the eyes, ears and heart. I hope you like it as much as I did.

**Contains Spoilers** You would think that with this kind of talent any film would be thrilling and riveting, not the infuriating throw-together that it is. Firstly there was a series of inconsistencies that plaque the film. Secondly, some dialogue had nothing to do with the action at hand. Thirdly, Tony Scott was being very artistic with his reaction shots. Timing and editing was awful. A few scenes bordered on the ridiculous. For example at 'Dead Man's Curve' the train is going so fast (Oh boy) that it actually tips and rides one rail at a 45 degree angle. Don't all trains do this? I got the feeling that they filmed many scenes with lots of dumb dialogue and shook the camera as much as they could and then threw it all together and hoped it would make sense in the end. But it doesn't and it shows.

And something final: I live in Pennsylvania near where this all takes place and I've never heard of this event. Talk about taking liberties.

I admit, this is my first review of the show that changed television. And I admit, its based on a look back, as opposed to a look-in to LOST. Mainly, these are my thoughts from the comments board, and I admit again, they're based on my disappointment at how the series ended.

Here it is:

(Before the end)

Don't expect to get all the questions answered. ----------------------------------------------

This show has been famous for asking a lot of questions. Introducing characters with seemingly crazy backgrounds with incredible stories. Situations and dramas unfolding.

However, could the show have been so story introducee that it became top heavy?

Will we see the end of the 2 1/2 hours and be a little disappointed with so many loose ends?

I remember the last couple years and thinking, man, that's gonna be a great story line, with some neat answers given. And then we wait and its never introduced again.

I think we placed so much faith into the story tellers/the writers, thinking that they would have all the answers to all the questions. And that's based on the glory days of the first couple MAGICAL seasons, when everything was so real and so rich...Wonderful STORYTELLING.

And the last couple seasons have been a little patchwork.

Then the "What If" episodes began, and I began to wonder if Fonzi had jumped the shark and if they'd be able to pull the rabbit our of the hat.

Well they didn't, not really. Good eps certainly, but fewer and fewer connections to the origins of the show.

I always thought that they had a master plan. This, then that, and then the wonderful climactic finish. And we would sit back and wonder in awe.

To be a little honest, a few of the eps seems to mirror themselves, like there was little momentum, just a biding of its time. The characters had been well developed, so that was well over. Was it that they were coming up with things for the characters to do, and to keep the show going.

And then the writers/creators revealed that they kinda didn't think that the show would last this long, that they were stretched to come up with idea after idea.

To be a little more honest, I'm kinda glad its coming to an end, to make room for another mold bashing drama. Lost was one of kind. It had broken the mold mixing adventure, sci-fi, horror, romance. Time to bring it to an end. And to say goodbye.

Lost is the first show in television history to have a running 6 year dialogue with such a complicated and effervescent plot theme. It went into many different directions, dragging with it rarely before seen themes and dynamics. One has to wonder if some of the questions can be answered or if they have been answered adequately enough to satisfy the average viewer.

Some of us are not rabid viewers, just TV watchers who enjoy Lost as part of our viewing retinue. But with our passivity, we'd like reasonable closure.

Lost touched on things we'd not seen before on the tube.

Just want to see it end with the same imagination with which it began.

(After it ended)

It had the makings of the greatest show ever on television. ----------------------------------------------------------

If you are to surpass MASH, Seinfeld, LA Law, Gunsmoke and establish yourself as the most premiere piece of entertainment on the tube then you are required to maintain the highest quality of writing and producing and directing possible.

Lost fell far short because it forgot what it was supposed to be. As a viewer you root for the little guy, for survivors, for the weak among the strong, the underdog. Lost was delivering that to us every week for a good couple of years...and then....

They began beating a dying horse to death. And it became sad to watch. You wanted it to become a simple uncomplicated tale of survival, togetherness, repelling the pall of death, taking turns being strong and then at the end of their series..all our hope and sweat turned into rescue, into the survivors, few or many returning to their loved ones, and lives that they left.

Too bad we didn't get that.

I don't know about anybody else, but whenever I saw Jackie Earl as Freddie I kept thinking he looked just like Kevin Bacon.

It takes so long for the movie to get going. They didn't even begin telling the story until 1/3rd of the way in. Just Freddie this and Freddie that. To be honest I was never given a chance to get to know or care about these kids. And listen, they weren't even kids. They were obviously in their mid to late twenties, except for Jesse.

I hated the pace, the lack of story, the lousy direction, Freddie was like 3 feet tall. He had no presence. (Sorry, Jackie).

I can see why Robert E. refused to be part of this. Without Wes and his need for real storytelling what's the point? And one can see why.

Its a Nightmare, but not in the way one would like. 3 out of 10.

I gotta tell ya, I really liked this movie. I cringed though and so will you if you have any like or love for God.

By now you might know the story. God is really ticked at humankind and he will do anything to destroy us, even use the angels of old to do it. One angel (Michael) refuses to do "God's Will" and protects the survivors of the holocaust and the chosen child, ala John Connor.

The special effects were spectacular and the acting was almost perfect. I'll give everyone a 8 out of 10. The stand out: Paul Bettany as Michael the Warrior angel. Of course, he takes every role he plays very seriously.

More about the message, I can't get over it. I don't think there's anyone that's going to leave the theater and feel very good about what they saw.

Horror movies have always done well when they've left God out of it, or questioning his attitudes or views on His chiefest creation.

Even The Omen places more focus on the plans of the Evil One and less on God's intentions.

I give this a 7 out of 10 for the above reasons. If the plot had been more about the evil of man, anything but making God out to be the bad guy it could've have warranted higher. In a lot of ways this is the opposite of Book of Eli, where God protects those who do His will.

Another stand out is Lucas Black. What a joy to see him again. He's grown up well (without his accent being affected) and he's very serious about the craft of acting. And it shows.

My suggestion: see it.

It appears that the older Denzel gets the more spiritual his movies and his characters become. He becomes a post-nuclear Kwai Chaing Cane here playing a drifter with a purpose. He carries in his possession a book that seems to hold great power, and one which many are willing to yearn, die and kill for.

He has been traveling for 30 years (since the sky opened) in order to deliver this book, The Book of Eli, to its ultimate purpose. He has killed many on his way because the voice that he heard decades ago told him he would be protected.

The sun never shines in this movie, as it didn't in Terminator Salvation, as it never does in any post-apocalyptic film. And the torn, ragged creatures he meets are as worn as you've seen in Water World or any movie like it.

Denzel's physicality really stands out. Its outstanding. He dispatches more than a few 'bad guys' sent on raids to look for the Book.

The plot carries what at first seems to be MacGuffin. We really don't know what this book is, and why its so important.

At the end though its revealed to us. And we wonder why this is the only copy of this book left. Who destroyed them and why is never revealed to us, though I guess we can surmise.

There is little doubt though, the sale of this book in the real world will be huge.

I give this movie 7 out of 10 stars because of the less than stellar plot revelation and the slight miscasting of Mila Kunis. The last scene (and you know which one) elicited some laughter in the theater.

You can really see where the $250,000,000 went. There's color and texture through every inch of the screen. And like every James Cameron film there is no expense spared on live sets. He really knows how to fill up a sound stage.

The story is really something to behold. A paralyzed soldier is recruited to pick up where his brother leaves off and gets new legs in the form of his avatar, a tribal, jungle dweller sent to stake out the traditions of a people for the purpose of reporting back their weaknesses so that they can be forced to move in order to obtain the rich natural resources that exists under their Lifetree, the source of their heritage and oneness.

When he falls in love with one of the female villagers and with the way of life of the peaceful, naturebound "People" he entertains second thoughts.

One can imagine the results. He's forced to make a decision. One to do what is right and protect a people susceptible to the strengths and ruthlessness of a greedy corporation, or back the plan of the Marines to remove or even eliminate the people for financial gain.

One cannot help but to draw comparisons between what we see on the screen (filmed during the Bush administration) and our presence in the Middle East and the American greed for oil.

The results are horrific. The ruthlessness is horrific to say the least. It is somewhat manipulative, and one can see clearly James Cameron's political bent. He paints the Marines as evil and willing to destroy the people with no more conscience than one would wipe out an ant hill.

The People fight back, with the help of the protagonist and a few Human friends and score some very deadly blows against the "evil" Marines.

I have never liked seeing American troops being killed, even when they're portrayed as being bad. I think the first, and maybe only time I've seen this is in the kid's movie, "Small Soldiers" and even then they were toys and not people.

The best message that the movie delivers is the need to respect not only the cultures of others regardless of our potential richening, but that the Earth is not merely a resource by which we satisfy our greedy desires but that we can live amongst nature and with it and cooperate with it, thereby being mutually benefited.

The message is a little heavy handed at times, and it can be a little distracting, but the beauty of the film's art is awe inspiring and James Camercon's love of detail takes one's breath away.

To see Sigourney Weaver do what she does, even at 61, is wonderful. Is another Ripley vehicle in store? We shall see.

8 out of 10.

Clint Eastwood's movies have always had the ability to take us into another time and space. And he does so in Invictus as well. But certainly not as well as in Unforgiven and in Changeling or any of his other great movies.

What he does do well here is to remind us of the power of the human spirit in the person of Nelson Mandela. Though the movie is primarily about South Africa's challenge in winning the rugby World Cup against insurmountable odds, I found the story of Mandela's emergence from prison to prominence and power equally as fascinating. His desire to forgive his oppressors and to captain his country gives the story of a half-baked rugby team some real meat.

Freeman's accent was certainly questionable but that of Matt Damon's was nearly flawless.

Eastwood didn't give us emotional scenes for their own sake, he allowed us to witness history recreated and the emotions came from its realism.

In spite of the movie's optimism, there was still an underlying unrest and distrust in the country. The Afrikaaners did not surrender power easily. Hundreds of years of minority rule plied on the backs of the indigenous Africans spoiled the children and grandchildren of the long-ruling Dutch into indecency. The initial discomfort between the white and black Presidential Security Detail well demonstrates that.

Kudos to Eastwood for allowing us to once again look into a culture not our own and enriching us in the process.

I never thought I would report this but a movie featuring the talents of Adam Sandler might be a Best Picture winner. If there were any doubts to the acting talents of Adam Sandler, or the directing abilities of Judd Apatow or his ability to truly focus on human nature they are henceforth dispensed with. This film is a wonderful character study that stars those actors that are not classically placed in this position.

Except for the middle third that seems to drag where George and Ira are camped out what's seems forever at George's ex-girlfriend's house the film allows us to gaze intently at the inner workings and failings of comic actor's psyche and his struggle through sickness to gain some sense of normality. He is assisted by an up and coming on-stage comic who provides some hesitant but occasionally wise insight that provides as much medicine as the treatments for his disease.

If George had died then this movie would have been in the same league as "Dying Young", and that would have been a good thing.

Now that the Academy has changed their mind about allowing 10 films to be nominated expect to see this one in the list.

Spoilers, spoilers, spoilers.

First of all lets get the acting out of the way. Its superb. From all.

And that ends the positivity of this review.

This film had so much potential and it uses only about half of it. The rest is stuff we've seen before, like the use of a mirror to shock us and the person using it. The fake out: The music rises and we expect someone with an axe around the corner and wham! no one there. In fact this was way overused.

Some neat surprises. Some neat twists. And that I fear is where the movie takes a dump. No one from this point on acts realistically. The deaf youngest daughter when we first meet her is hand signing like crazy. She can talk your eyes out. Then when we need her to "speak"...nothing.

The husband doesn't believe for a second that his family is in danger and when all the evidence piles up, he doesn't blame the crazy girl, no..its all the wife's fault. And then when you think the husband can't be more deceived he takes the murderous girl home with him and his daughter. Course, he pays the price for that.

And of course, to add to the frenetic pace that eventually overwhelms the film, the camera man gets the serious shakes and we are never allowed to fully see the girl/woman in full or completely.

The movie had nothing but potential, but like many others like it treads very familiar ground, and when trying to turn down a path few have tried, it makes the victims act in ways that seem ridiculous.

And finally, the director still saw the need to have a smoking scene. Oh, how shamelessly the tobacco companies make deposits into the pockets of producers and directors. And how sad.

There is no doubt that this is a bold telling of the origins of the NCC-1701 and its fledgling crew. And the story is compelling. The acting is very good. There are some details though that really curl my piggy tail. No one, in any universe would believe that Uhura and Spock are romantically involved and that Spock would allow himself PDA on the transporter pad. That's too much by itself. Then we see Kirk attaining the rank of Captain by trickery and the destruction of Spock's self-confidence. Not the way I would have imagined.

I love the assertion that Kirk is a bad boy. That's a given. Spock coming from a planet that is so populated that there is not a square inch of grass is trying. (Where will the combat between Spock and Kirk take place?) The worst is that we're shown that the planet Vulcan is completely destroyed. How many planets of Vulcan can and will there be? Integral to the plot of the movie but its a thumbing of the nose to the Star Trek universe that we've loved and respected for over 40 years. Creating a universe from scratch can be a real chore but it can be a curse. If you're gonna throw the baby out with the bath water (replacing long held Trek dogma for that which looks good on film) is not honorable. It becomes like the lie that covers the next lie.

I think the real treasure in this film was Checkov. He was simply adorable and a real treat. A real surprise. Who knew he was so good at math and so confident at Public Addresses.

Normally, seeing Leonard Nimoy is a rare privilege but he says his lines so drolly and so robotlike its hard to take him seriously. Also, no insult intended but he looks every day of his 78 years. He looks very old and very frail.

Finally, the movie is so busy, there's little time to enjoy the intricacies of the characters or the increasingly complicated plot.

Many things could have been done better. Many things were done well. A good introduction for Abrams into the Star Trek universe. At least his own.

This version of the classic Kipling novel takes a kinder, gentler approach to Harvey's dilemma at sea.

Its very different from the much more famous Spencer Tracy vehicle, for in this version Captain Disco takes the reigns of the teacher/mentor of the fated hard-headed Harvey. Karl Malden is a soft turn compared to the rough and scramble Lionel Barrymore.

Its obvious that this version is a TV offering because of the sound quality and overall feel but it makes up for any lesser quality with its sincerity and attention to detail. We get to see more of how a ship works in this one.

Manuel is played intelligently by Ricardo Montalban (I bought this right after his death) but instead of being Harvey's main teacher, he's just part of the crew. But that might be part of the charm of this film, the entire crew adopts Harvey as their own and the sharper edged individuals from the earlier film, Long Jack with a sincere dislike for Harvey and Captain Disko, who takes no crap from a mouthy and surly youngin', and we get a more genteel telling of the classic novel.

Harvey is played brightly by Jonathan Kahn, but one cannot help but to compare his efforts with Freddie's from 40 years before.

A worthy offering for they compromised not at all.

**SPOILERS** This is certainly a first where we see Liam Neeson as the lead in an action movie. He was sublimely superb in his abbreviated appearance in Gangs of New York, but here he's top dog. And he pulls it off with surprising effectiveness in spite of his adding years.

You can really tell that Liam has put in his time at the gym. He's trim almost to the point of being gaunt. He doesn't have that bulky, largely masculine frame that we've always been used to.

He plays the part of a former CIA operative, now retired, who is cast back into action after his daughter is kidnapped soon after arriving in France. You really believe and really like his character in spite of the ruthless way he goes about getting his daughter back. Of course, the only people he wastes are bad ones, so no loss there. Your forbearance of his brutal means are somewhat tested however when he shoots and merely wounds the wife of a former French secret agent, once a compatriot, now riding a desk, aware of but not trying to stop the evil in his environs.

Liam Neeson does a very good job in this action thriller because of his usual dedication to the craft, his refusal to leave a scene unfinished, and his still ominous presence.

There are a few chin scratchers in the narrative like a few over the top car chases and the absurdity to believe that the French government would allow as many visitors to the country to simply disappear, but overall the action makes sense, especially considering that Liam's playing a father trying to rescue his daughter at any cost.

The rest of the cast are convincing. The bad guys are ghoulish, the good guys are few but decent, and the actress playing the daughter does nicely.

While Taken has a few formulaic elements, it has its own thrill, its own flavor and with a performer like Liam Neeson it has an undeniable richness.

8 out of 10.

I found it hard at first to imagine Rick Schroeder (the former Ricky Schroeder) as a 30's something uncle. But here he really makes us believe that he is that age, and he is from that time. His Victorian approach to conversation and the opposite sex is very believable and, may I say, refreshing. He seems a stable personality with strong ethics and a lust for adventure. Peter Fonda was a pleasant surprise. The supporting cast is very believable, the sets are well thought out, and the special effects are effective.

A worthy interpretation of the original material. I believe that Jules Verne (my favorite science fiction writer) would have been proud.

***SPOILERS ABOUND***

There is no doubt that this is George Lucas' baby. His fingerprints are all over this. Special effects abound so effusively as to be an advertisement for his FX ranch. I hardly believe that Spielberg had anything to do with this. Reason: There's hardly a story here. There's nothing that goes with you after you leave the theater.

No doubt that Harrison Ford is in incredible shape, and it was great to see him do his stuff. It was nice to see his old flame. It was fine to discover that Shia is his love child. But if that's all there is to it, then the price of admission was fairly a wasted one.

You hardly see a thread of real, pure adventure that ran through the first three, and which you'd expect to see in this one. I'm glad that they didn't try to pass Indy off as just a little older and still battling the Nazis. This time its the Cold War and Indy does battle with the Commies. The movie takes place 19 years after the last one, in 1957. We saw IJ3 19 years ago. So that works. But this is a whole different, and fairly boring animal. More sci-fi and more special effecty that one would ever expect.

Spielberg was always proud that in this franchise his actors did their own stunts and that special effects were kept to a minimum. But its just not so here. They abound with so much ferocity, that one cannot help but to roll one's eyes.

I liked it, but it wasn't worth the 2 decade wait. That's for sure.

I expected more from 2 seasoned, imaginative directors who it seems have more paint than story rolling through their heads. And its a shame. 2 out of 5.

I've watched this movie about 4 times, and really enjoyed the personifications of these historic characters (albeit apocryphal).

Johnny Lee Miller and David Arquette are very convincing as Gus and Woodrow. The most memorable performance is easily that of Keith Carradine. He portrayed Bigfoot Wallace, a larger than life frontiersman, who actually outlived the firing squad at Saltillo, in a clever, poetic and humorous way. The only downer of the movie, is the same with any and all Larry McMurthy films: they're depressing as hell! Death, tragedy and sufferin'! And as with all of his films, the conquering will of the human spirit shines through. A fine example of a Western film.

How does one start relating the problems relating to the mess of this movie? Firstly, the plot is not revealed until 1/2 way through the movie. And it is so muddled as to stupefy the best imagination. I had to listen to an interview with the director on the radio before it made any sense.

Secondly, we are led to believe that this is James' first outing as an operative even though the actor is apparently in his late forties. I don't believe that spies start their careers that late. And I have a hard time believing that James Bond, in any incarnation, would kill as haphazardly and thoughtlessly as this one.

Which takes us to my third complaint: Daniel Craig is not a handsome man. Apart from his buffed body he has no sex appeal. He does not possess the rugged yet refined masculinity that the previous Bonds possessed in abundance. Craig has a roughness but no charm. He is without doubt the least attractive member in the bunch.

Lastly, this movie had no idea when the love should end and the action begin. No other movie in the franchise seemed so thrown together and so jumbled. And I can't imagine what the producers were thinking having so many double-agents. That was a very amateurish move.

I didn't like this Bond. I didn't like the movie. And I don't like the direction this franchise is heading. They've made some terrible choices. First to not beg Pierce to reprise a role that he perfected, and lastly, and most importantly to employ a Bond that is ugly and ruthless and without any suavete.

The Broccolis should rethink their choices before they lose all credibility.

3 out of 10 stars. And I'm being generous.

Such a departure for Peter Jackson who placed such heavy emphasis on story in Lord of the Rings with special effects as supplementary, to special effects being the star in this movie. The "avalanche" of dinosaurs was just silly and the soft blowing hairs of Kong's coat was over done. We've seen it before and it was tired here.

As for Jack Black, what was he going for here, sociopathic opportunist? If so, then he succeeded. But it in no way solicits an emotional appeal so required for the usual hero. Not the best choice at all. I would much preferred the hugely talented, much more serious Adrien Brody in the top human role. The acting was fine, except for Black's. It has an excellent start with a view of vaudeville and the Depression (gave us a great feel of place and time) but the story was short-circuited by too much of everything else. I gave it 6 out of 10. And I mean it.

Has some spoilers.

First of all, anytime you have this many stars and rising stars in one big budget film, you can expect great acting, good special effects and a terrific plot. And it has all that. The problems begin when you begin to think or reason too much.

The rest of the this review is for anyone who has already seen the movie and wishes to "talk" about it.

Let's talk about the implausibilities: What is the chance that no one, absolutely no one had seen Julia? The plot (conspiracy) would have had to have gone much deeper, and involved many more people to have caused no record of Julia being on the passenger list and no one to have seen her at the departure gate. To think it was just Carson and Stephanie is pretty hard to believe.

Most improbably is how anyone could have stolen the boarding pass from Kyle's pocket, drugged the girl, gotten her bags, clothes, etc from the overhead compartment, and carried her away from the seat without anyone seeing them, and of course, waking Kyle.

You have to answer all these questions before the movie does its job completely of not only entertaining but satisfying a logical mind.

But after all of this, I must say, I enjoyed it. It ended well and it was worth the wait. Jodie Foster has incredible presence and has lost none of her intelligence and instinct for emotion. 7 of 10 stars.

For years I have been fond of saying that Leonardo DiCaprio will never win an Oscar. I will now have to revise that statement.

This movie is truly an astounding study in character. And Leo pulls it off fantastically. For the second time in his career, we forget that its Leo and are welcomed inside of the character portrayed. The first, of course, was his performance in Gilbert Grape.

Leo seems bigger than life, and believable when his Howard Hughes, as a young man, says early in the film, "you tell those (expletives) that even though I'm 21 years old, its MY company and if they don't like it they can kiss my ass!" (paraphrased) I truly believed at that point that we were in for quite a ride, and that this was Leo's triumphant entry into legend.

The movie brings us all kinds of great stars of the 30's and 40's. The best of these is Katherine Hepburn, played wondrously by Cate Blanchett. This is the first time in my memory that an actor portrayed another actor who wasn't in character. In an understated and completely believable manner, Cate really captured Hepburn's strength, humor and feminine wiles. Few actresses could have pulled this off better. And Cate really looks like a young Katherine.

The supporting cast turn in memorable performances, and there is no weak link among them. John C. Reilly continues to show a gentlemanly persona in every performance.

I loved "The Aviator" and am convinced that it will become a golden classic. A sincere 8 out of 10 stars.

I just watched this program for the first time in my life. Mrs Kennedy was simply the epitome of charm, grace, elegance and intelligence. She was mesmerizing to watch and her knowledge of the history of the People's House was staggering. And to think that she was an occupant for less than three years! She was able to accomplish so much in that short time.

Its too bad that the First Ladies since then haven't had the connection with the country that she did. She didn't seem overwhelmed by the job, and she never used her position for foolish causes or embarrassing histrionics.

She was truly a work of art. And one of the White House's and America's greatest treasures.

If you notice, she has very little compassion for women who have been duped, beaten up or defrauded by men. She believes that since she would never "fall" for a man who would be a bad apple, then the women who do should have to pay for their mistake, even if the law declares otherwise.

And she will NOT rule in their favor!

She makes knee-jerk after knee-jerk judgements based solely upon her hatred of women, particularly victimized women.

She should consider going into the witch burning business.

It is obvious why America loves this woman so much. She says the rude and outrageous things that most people crave to say. She has become the horde-monger's prophet.