yayagirl14

I completely love this movie, though it doesn't have the huge battles of Two Towers and Return of the King. I think the casting was great, all of the fellowship and everything. Everybody just looks right (except the brown haired elves, but that is for later) It moved a little slow, so it is not appealing for everybody, but if you make it through you love it.

But there are some flaws. For instance, i don't know if this is Elijah wood or peter Jackson, but frodo was not so wimpy. Frodo becomes more scared and weak as the ring takes over, but he wasn't so confused and out of it in the book. Also, i think a major part in this is when he was stabbed and was sick, when Liv Tyler came along and saved him. In the book he actually rode the horse himself and was much more awake and he said "if you want me , come and take me" not Liv Tyler saying "if you want him come and take him" (i know very nit-picky but very strong point) Also on the subject of Liv Tyler, i don't think she should have had any lines at all, since in the book, she doesn't talk. All it says is (paraphrased) "look Aragorn there is the elf princess" and Aragorn told the hobbits the story, but never says it is about him. so all of her scenes should be gone. not to mention she had BROWN hair?? if i remember correctly from LOTR and the Hobbit, elves are blonde.

Also this is also either actor or director, but elrond is not supposed to be really intimidating. HE is supposed to be more of a grandfather type character, but still stern. (not to mention the brown hair) But yet again i love this movie, there were many things that were cut out, but i would rather watch a 3 hour movie than a 7 hour movie. Pippin and Merry are just hilarious. Gandalf is wonderful. Everything is great (except for the things mentioned above) and i rent this movie often.

I have to say I really do love watching this movie. It is completely entertaining, and is worth watching. But i think that Spiderman does have some major flaws. For instance, I think Kirsten Dundst is HORRIBLE, not . just as Mary Jane, but in general. She is an OK actress, but she always looks like she is either falling asleep, or completely possessed. And i don't think she knows the meaning of posture. I think if opened her eyes stood up straight, takes some more technique based acting, she would be just wonderful. Too bad though.

Tobey Macguire is fine, he doesn't seem as strong minded as i thought he was, more of a superman. Also his faces when he is running over buildings just really make the movie amazing because they are so melodramatic and over the top its hilarious.

I of course love James Franco, but i think his character was a little pointless, i know they needed to lead up to him hating Spiderman and such, but he seemed just so weak and sallow most of the time, instead of this strong school boy.

The scripting some times was a little ... cheesy. Especially some of the goblin's lines, not that i don't think Willem Dafoe is a great actor, I think he had to work very hard to make his character not a Power Ranger.

I am very glad that they did do some back ground, though there was a little much. I personally did not know the back ground story of Spiderman, though i know many people do, i thought it was interesting to know. I just thought he was Spiderman because he was, not so much of the spider biting and his uncle and stuff.

Also the CGI sometimes is great and sometimes is HORIFIC! As i watch the movie i get very confused because i think i am watching a cartoon. But it does make you laugh and i like to laugh so it is a bitter sweet goof.

But through all this, the movie is entertaining and i like to watch it. And i am very excited for Spiderman 3.

Monsters Inc. is just what I expected, Amazing. Every time I see a Pixar movie, from the spectacular Finding Nemo, or the hilarious Toy Story, I know I will be enjoyed. Pixar has such a way with making movies interesting to all ages. Because everyone of all ages, can relate to these characters, or the plot. From all the special features and commentaries I watch on these movies, the directors and writers really do spend so much time in making sure all audiences can watch their movies.

Now that I have talked about Pixar, I will talk about Monsters Inc. The movie is just wonderful. From the first scene, where the monster is just totally destroying this kid's room, to the last scene, where Sulley finally sees Boo again, I laugh, I worry, I feel. If anyone says there is nothing funny in this movie, they must either have no sense of humor, or a really bad sense of humor, or just want to be cynical. The movie is HILARIOUS, with lines such as "did you loose weight, or a limb" The voices are wonderful, John Goodman just has this wonderful voice for animated films, it is so deep and hard, but tender and soft. Billy Crystal is just wonderfully funny. Even all the little characters, like the abominable snow man, are just hilarious. And the story is also touching, you really feel for Boo, and her relationship with Sulley, and even with Mike.

I think the thing that makes Pixar so different from all other animation companies such as Dreamworks, Pixar doesn't very many vocal songs. They have an orchestra do most of their music. It gives the movies much more of a genuine tone. Even though i love the sound track to Shrek and Shrek 2, I feel i watch the movie for the music, not the plot. Pixar has such amazing music, you don't realize that it almost another character to the films.

Overall, Monsters Inc. is a wonderfully entertaining film and should be watched by any age group.

OK, before i go onto my, Finding Nemo is the best movie ever rant, i will begin by stating some things wrong with many of the "hated it" comments. First of all, Disney DID NOT WRITE IT. Andrew Stanton and Bob Paterson did, they work for Pixar. second of all, everyone says, this is the typical, loss of parents movie. Well yes partly, but not necessarily. The movie is called finding memo, not memo is lost, or memo's lost adventures. Which means the movie is NOT about memo, it is about marlin. So did marlin loose his parents, not that we know of. Also, the point of the movie is not memo triumphs, it is a father son movie, that was trying to relate to actual experiences of people. The movie shows the growing of these two fish to understand each other. Marlin and memo grow in understanding that yes, memo needs boundaries, but he needs freedom as well. Now for the ranting. First, Nemo has the most stunning images of all the Pixar movies. Obviously fish don't talk, and obviously it is animation. But you feel almost as if you were underwater for real, with animated fish. Now the plot is a little run of the mill, but Pixar does so much with it. Bringing in such characters like the tank, or dory (of course), the turtles etc. Also, the comedy is golden. The obvious comedy comes from Dory easily, but Marlin (Albert Brooks) brings so much more in the end. Pixar really tries to relate its plots to actual experiences. Like most children think that their toys talked and came alive, most children think that there are monsters under the bed or in the closet. A huge fear in children is the fear of separation. Overall, Pixar is the greatest animation company right now, i think. They put so much effort into all of their movies, and the end result is spectacular.

Well, this movie is a definite must see (as is obvious from my summary). If you love sports movies, watch it. If you love dramas, watch it. If you are interested in civil rights, watch it. Pretty much if you are alive, watch it. The only problems is that it ruins sports movies for you, it is so good. Seeing any of the new ones is just painful to me, because I want to have Denzel Washington in it, giving speeches and such. Every single character in this movie is amazing, from the star players, to the coaches, to the one liners. Everyone is fabulous. I don't even like football especially, but this movie just interests me to the very end.

though this movie was a bit predictable, you know, at first she cant handle the job but then she gets a make over and does well, then she becomes a "glamazon" i mean, yes predictable, there are so many just funny slap stick lines in there, so many fun little bits and movements and looks, that really come from all the actors (not just Meryl Streep) Though Meryl Streep is, i think, the greatest actress in movies right now, i don't think we should credit the entire movie to her. Yes she is phenomenal, but Anne Hathaway has a very quiet acting style. But I think Emily Blunt is just as good, or even better than Anne Hathaway. She is my favorite character (other than Miranda of course). She has a certain air about her that makes me laugh every time she comes on the screen. Also, on the more negative side, i think the major flaw in the plot is Andy's friends. they keep getting mad at her and fail to see that Andy (until the very end) still wants to be a journalist, and that she needs to do well for Miranda to succeed her dream. If her little boyfriend really loved her, he would have understood. Also the comedy mostly comes from specific lines, "gird your loins" for example, but the one line that i think has nothing to do with anything is when Andy is talking to Christian Thompson, she says "if Miranda were a man, no one would notice anything about her except how great she is at what she does", where did that come from? Sure i am a girl, and i believe in womens rights, but i don't think that line was necessary. Nobody elaborated on the subject at all. But yet, that doesn't ruin the movie. through everything, the movie is still one of my favorites to watch, though i skip through parts i don't like (most scenes without Streep).

Well, this movie may be the "best" movie of the Harry Potter movies, but it is the most untrue to the book. Sure in the 4th one the maze was all wrong, and in the 1st they left out trials before Harry gets to the stone. But in the 3rd, not only are some characters just portrayed incorrectly, the plot is twisted, and many things are not explained. For example, if you have not read the book, you don't understand anything about Sirius and why he really isn't guilty (my brother was super confused for example). Also there was barely any quidditch, quidditch is one of the most important aspects in the book. On that note, Sirius was supposed to send Harry his fire bolt in the middle of the book, and there was a big conflict about if the broom is bewitched. Also, it says specifically in the book that the students at Hogwarts don't know how to dress in the "current styles" because they only wear their robes, that doesn't seem to be the case in the movie. Also the dementors are wrong, they don't fly, they float, the kiss was not them attacking you and pulling your face off, they was supposed to be huge lips somewhere, i didn't see any. Also i cant seem to decide whether Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint are good actors or not, in the 4th they are fine, no overacting or anything, but in the 3rd, i don't know what to think, for example, when Harry finds out about SIrius and his parents, he does some sort of cry thing, that looks like he is having an asthma attack. Also, this isn't really any ones fault, but Emma Watson is way too gorgeous for her character, i mean, Hermione is supposed to have bushy hair and buck teeth, Emma Watson has perfect teeth and amazing hair. The movie was disappointing, when you have a Harry Potter marathon, watch 1, 2, and 4. because the only reason you should watch 3 is when you are in a "omg this movie is wrong" mood, and want to point out everything incorrect in the movie.

Most people say that POTC 2 was completely horrible and put shame to the first movie. But the sequel is just a different feel to the first one. In the first one, everything was dirty, the pirates, the ships, the towns. But in Dead Man's Chest, it was more slime, Davey Jones men, and the cracken. So really the movie wasn't worse than the first, just different. It was definitely no Spiderman 2. Also, as an observation, it seems Keira Knightley was about half as skinny as she was in the first. In the first she was much more healthy, still skinny, but healthy. I personally didn't like her character as much in Dead Man's Chest. The whole " i love Jack Sparrow" thing was not very good, and how she fooled him so she could save Will Turner made her seem more evil than just a strong woman. But through all that, the movie was good, but still didn't match up to the first one.

This is one of the most underrated Christmas movies i think. It has classic songs, actors, and plot (though some things don't really fit, but that is in most movies in the 40s and 50s) I think this movie should be religiously watched every Christmas. The acting is wonderful, Bing Crosby and Rosemary Clooney are amazing. The comedy is great with Danny Kaye, and Vera Ellen brings great dancing to the picture. All the music is amazing, my favorite song is the Mandy, with its great dancing and funny jokes. The costumes are fabulous, with vibrant colors. Overall this movie is pretty much amazing, everything is just perfect when your in the Christmas mood.