wyattej2000

First off let me preface by saying that I was looking forward to this movie. Now let me make it clear, this movie is an absolute disaster.

Even with talent like Pacino, Walken and Arkin there was no saving this script. Walken and Pacino feel like they are sleepwalking through this effort. If that is what they intended to portray then fine, they got what they wanted. Arkin is great but literally has about 13 minutes of screen time.

The simple and boring plot of this film is set up within the first 8 minutes and never deviates one iota, except for one completely foreseeable "twist" 2/3 of the way through.

After watching this film I felt like I had just spent an hour and a half at Hometown Buffet watching senior citizens nosh on the early bird special because a huge portion of the film is dedicated to meals. Pacino and Walken, particularly Pacino, eat like 8 meals in just over a 24 hr period. It gets rather annoying.

Overall I found this movie almost unbearable and completely forgettable. Aside from Arkin, this film has zero redeeming qualities

First off I will say that I am a fan of the first two films. I thought they were suspenseful, and not the "torture porn" or whatever other negative description one could put in to talk about the movies. It appeared to me that "Hostel" seemed to be from the victims perspective where as "Hostel II" was more from the "clients" perspective. Now for "Hostel III", after viewing it one time, I can't really say what persepctive it is coming from. There is some blatant social commentary about Vegas and the allure of sex, booze, gambling, and all the other things we relate to "sin city". I will say that I think the gambling aspect could have been played up a little more to add to the unique qualities of the film but they chose not to go in that direction. There were a few faux pas along the way, and even though they were in Vegas (flashy, exciting) the aesthetic qualities of the film locations were not even close to the first two (Eastern European coutryside). Don't be fooled by people who fly off the handle and say the movie is terrible, and horribly acted, it's not. The film is okay for what it is, the acting is fine, gore sufficient, some little plot twists to keep you guessing. For a st8t to DVD release it was pretty good.

First off I have been a Motorhead fan since the early '80's. I remember when this band was completely underground, playing gigs in the U.S. in places as small as the Rainbow Bar and Grill in which Lemmy spends a lot of time to this day. Anyways, Lemmy has always been kind of a caricature of himself, or a bit larger than life even before Motorhead became more mainstream in U.S. culture. I say this because he has always been an odd combination of being raucous, gracious, a hell raiser, and kind of a normal person who happens to get on stage in front of thousand of people 9 months out of the year. All without ever bending his morals, beliefs, or way of doing things.

As far as the movie is concerned it is a very interesting look at the reality of the "rock and roll" lifestyle, it's ups and downs. The film is put together a little odd, with interviews and footage from past and present being intermixed throughout. Entire concert footage clips may not appeal to those who are not Motorhead fans, (let's face it, they are an acquired taste) but the subject matter which is LEMMY will be interesting to anyone who likes rock, or metal because it is an honest and intimate look at one person who has pretty much seen it all and done it all at every level of the music and entertainment business. What we learn is that there is at least one person on this earth who truly does not care what you as a person or a viewer think about him, but if you treat him with respect he will gladly reciprocate with an honest and no b.s. style which one rarely sees from people who are in the publics eye.

This film is dreadful, boring, schlock! Say what you will about the shows, I have seen episodes of "Ghost Hunters" and "Paranormal State," that are way more scary than this. I will state a theory that I came up with, that is the only explainable reason why this film is getting good reviews. This film, is not an "indy" movie. This film is a corporate creation made to look like an "indy" film, and given rave reviews in order to knock the SAW series off of it's Halloween pedestal. Just kidding, but really, this movie is sooooo baaad, I could not come up with any other explanation as to how it is receiving good reviews. If you don't believe me, then waste an hour and forty minutes of your life and see for yourself.

This was written by me for a metal forum. I am in no way associated with Iron Maiden, DVD retailers, or any of the like. I am a lifelong Iron Maiden fan going back to 1982, and I wanted to share my take on the new DVD release.

= "Flight 666: The Film," came out today, June 9th, and it is worth every penny of its purchase price. For anyone who saw Iron Maiden on The Somewhere Back in Time Tour, or has seen Maiden at any time in the past, I don't have to tell you how good of a show they put on, we all know, already. I wanted to just add my two cents about this DVD release, for anyone who was thinking about buying it, because not only is it an official Maiden release, it is also one hell of a bargain for what you get. = Whether you get the "standard" issue, or the "deluxe" issue (only difference is the packaging, and you get an expanded booklet in the deluxe version) you get two discs. Disc 1 is "Flight 666 The Movie," and Disc 2 is the concert footage from the film in its entirety, city to city. = All footage from both discs is shot in high def, so everything looks great, I can't imagine what this looks like on the BLU-RAY format, must be mindblowing. The sound mix is excellent, and each disc caters to various sound systems no matter how simple or how high end they are. Sound formats include Dolby Digital 2.0, Dolby Digital 5.1, NTSC-PCM, and DTS. Personally I always like DTS, so I was pretty excited. = As far as being a good bargain..... It is. I purchased this at B@$t B%y. They only had the "deluxe" edition which was listed at $16.99, but it's on sale for $11.99 !!!! It's less expensive than most audio cd's. = As far as the content is concerned, well that is left up to the viewer. I thought the movie itself was pretty entertaining, a good mix of live footage, and documentary footage. The live concert disc is excellent because they go song to song, city to city, and you get to check out different Maiden fans, and venues from all over the world. = As usual Iron Maiden delivers the goods with a class and integrity that most bands have never had, or lost a long time ago (ie. see Lars Ulrich in movie footage). Overall this is a quality DVD release, at a very fair price. It seems like Iron Maiden is always a step ahead of the game.

I rented this film as a "oh what the heck" kind of a choice because I like many of the featured actors. This film starts off as a pretty decent "old fashioned" thriller, which eventually devolves into a silly sci-fi disaster. I would like to break this film in half, keeping the first half and tossing the second. The first half quickly sets the scenario and the players, and we are driven toward a potential little suspense thriller. Then all of a sudden without necessity we are plunged into the supernatural. This film was very close to being what it should have been, a suspense/thriller about greedy people looking out for themselves and chasing down whatever their perception was of the "golden egg." Also the outside shots of the train were terrible CGI, and when the train is separated only the rear half breaks away. I work as a conductor for the railroad, and if you managed to separate the cars, the entire train goes into emergency, the engine does not continue to pull away. But, by the time this happens it does not really matter, the movie had been lost for a while before that.

I feel Clint Eastwood in many ways went way out on a limb in this film. First of all it is a thoughtful film. He is dealing with a clash of cultures, age, religion, and tradition. There are many themes being played out throughout this film and I think Eastwood handled them well. I mean, how many American released films are centered around the Hmong people? Like none. So, with that Eastwood was daring. Not only does he try to bring a group of people onto the screen who have been virtually ignored, he also takes off the kid gloves and makes the main character a partial antagonist. To those thinking about seeing the film let me warn you, the language is pretty rough for those with a thin skin. At times Eastwoods character made me uneasy with his outwardly racist comments, I guess that means Clint did a great job of acting.

Anyways, in summary, this is a very good film, Eastwood's acting is amazing, the younger actors do an okay job most of the time. Clint will win best actor for this film. The film will not win best picture, but it is not that far off.

As a 007 fan I was excited about this film. Loved Casino Royale, like Daniel Craig etc. This film is a friggin mess. First of all, the camera work is terrible. It looks more like an MTV video or a video game. It is so hectic, you can't tell what's going on, total disaster. The poor editing of this film reminded me of "The Happeneing." The scenes often make no sense one after the other, you can't tell how long the passage of time is, and there are scenes that go nowhere and have no reason to be there. The actors look very bored with this minimalist pathetic script which apparently was written by 3 people (always a bad sign). Overall this film is totally forgettable. I will not watch it again. By the way the villains are totally boring and stupid.

Wow, I can't believe this movie is still carrying 7.5 stars. First off I am a huge Coen Bros. fan, and I had the opportunity to watch Burn After Reading at my own home, at my own leisure. I really wanted to see this movie, and I was really disappointed. The actual "movie" itself was not bad, I think that my problems stem from the fact that I hated all of the characters. There was not one character that I liked or could in any way shape or form relate to at all. That for me is a first when watching a Coen Bros. film. Maybe if they had a little for development rather than just being thrown at us, I don't know. Like I said the film itself is well shot (they picked an awful lot of dreary overcast weather though), sounds good, and actually is paced well, and the way the characters are all intermingled with one another without knowing was pretty cool. Clooney's wifes character seemed kind of shoved out of the loop until we see her on her book tour in Seattle but whatever, that could have been another story in itself. Overall this movie was okay... Just not what I was expecting after NCFOM.

First of all my high ratings of all of these films is based more on the fact that I think they are strong installments for the horror/suspense genre as opposed to being fantastic films for their cinematography etc. Second, before you see SAW V it might be a good idea to brush up on your SAW knowledge including SAW IV. I felt that SAW V was not only gory and all that good stuff, but it was a great game of cat and mouse between characters, and really ties the first four movies together. At this point I can not think of any loose ends that are out there for the film makers to explain any further, and we as viewers have been told the whole story. Realisticaly this film rates around a 6.5 for me but for the horror genre it is great. Enjoy, it really wraps the whole series of films together well, you won't be disappointed.

Do not see this movie. There, I warned you. It is an absolute pile of garbage. I'm not even talking about the plot, story, screen writing or the acting, I am talking about the way the film was shot. The entire thing is shot in a sound studio next to a blue screen. The first minute of this film look creepy and promising. What follows is an absolute disaster. The actors are not even interacting with one another. It is glaringly obvious that one actor was shot doing his or her part in front of a blue screen, then another, then another, then it was all layered together. None of the actors are even looking at one another because they are not there. This movie sucked, and it looked like hell. What a waste of time and money.

I had seen that this film received awful reviews, so I waited for it to come out on DVD. I was actually looking forward to it being that I am a pretty big M. Night fan. I even like The Village and Lady in the Water. That being said, The Happening was truly abysmal. This film felt like it hit the editing room floor first, then was pieced together. What a mess! And what a boring movie. The film is 86 mins and at 44 mins I was wondering whether I would turn it off or not, that's how bad it was for me. I did not think that the acting was all that bad, it was just the lack of material for the actors that was the problem. This did not even feel like an M. Night movie to me at all. Can't really explain that comment further, it just did not feel right. I would say even for M. Night fans, this is an unnecessary movie. It's not worth the DVD its burned on. Waste of time.

Like a reviewer said earlier I am one of those people who "did not crack a smile once" during the whole movie. Not to say that I disliked the actors in the film, I think they did pretty well with what they had to work with. I understand this is kind of a quirky movie, but being quirky is not an allowance to be unrealistic. I think the script was awful. Character reaction to a relatively serious situation was completely off the wall and unbelievable. I got the impression that if Juno had forgotten to do a homework assignment for school she would have been in more trouble than getting herself pregnant. Technically the editing was beyond atrocious, some of the cuts from scene to scene looked like they were scotch taped together randomly, with numerous shots serving zero purpose whatsoever. To think this was nominated for an academy award is laughable. If you want to see what a quirky independent film should really look like check out Rushmore or Little Miss Sunshine, those films are far superior to this farce.

As far as the actual film is concerned this is a pretty well done documentary. I found it to be pretty objective, and the film makers just presented the subject matter and let you the viewer decide. Now as far as the subjects of the film are concerned... Similar to Jesus Camp in the sense that the truly disturbing issues in the film are the people who are involved. These folks are complete nut jobs. They don't know anything about how the world works in their little brainwashed WASP Christian extremist world except for that which is over exaggerated on television. The "rave guy" was friggin' hilarious, everyone will have a good laugh at him. The real horror of Hell House are the whacko's of this community who participate in this nonsense, that was the truly terrifying part. Wow, I'm glad I don't live in that hell hole talk about "Land of the Dead"..."Land of the Brain Dead" more like.

I do not understand what all the fuss is about. After reading reviews, good and bad, I had certain expectations in my mind when I finally saw this film. Frankly it exceeded expectations, and was a pretty decent film . WTF? people. Look at the horror genre of today. You have movies like this, ie. (saw)(cabin fever)(touristas) etc., Romero still pumping out cool zombie films, Rob Zombie, the Resident Evil series, (Extiction) was the only good movie, what do you expect? This is a pretty good film (for its genre). Whoever said in earlier reviews that this film was not shot well is an idiot, it was fine. There is nothing really wrong with this movie, it has pretty good suspense, not as violent as I thought it would be, and the story played out as well as it could. Again, WTF?, if you saw this film what did you expect?

This review contains no spoilers. I enjoyed this movie, and I do not work for Lionsgate as hinted by some previous reviewers. I watched this movie in a packed house, 1st showing, and the audience applauded at the end. This new episode of Rambo needs to be looked at mostly along side II and III. "First Blood," was its own thing and could sit alone without any sequels and it would still have the same reputation it has today, a pretty good action/drama. Now, getting to the sequels. II had a high budget and lots of action, but it was bogged down in my opinion by small sets and some pretty crummy dialog. III was a bit more intricate, with bigger, more grand looking sets, decent dialog and a lot of action. At the time it seemed that the plot was a bit foreign to most because people did not care nor really have any idea of what was going on between the Russians, the Afghans,and the U.S. complicity in their war. Anyways... Getting back to the new film. In a way it reminds me of II. Set in the jungle, in Burma, this film has a lot of action, and lots of "shoot 'em up," carnage. But, the difference is the partial reality of the plot, and the fact that it appears to be on a bigger scale like III, but holding the intensity of the original First Blood. As far as the filming, overall the film looks pretty good, there are some choppy transition for a few minutes just after the first 1/3 of the film, but it does not last long. A few scenes of awkward dialog, but overall the film seems pretty well put together. And actually there are some beautiful overheads of the jungle, kind of appealing in a way.

Now, for the action. The body counts are the highest ever, the gore is pretty extreme, big explosions, but the films violence is based in the idea of "combat." For me the pure combat scenes reminded me of "Saving Private Ryan," for their intensity. Yes some of the violence is a bit over the top and gratuitous but hey, it's Rambo.

This is a very good action/war movie. And for its genre, it is top notch and will satisfy those who are fans of the series and fans of action films.

This is a really good movie, unfortunately I could not remove myself from the fact that the main character was a complete moron. First of all contrary to what people feel, "dropping out of society" is a lazy, b.s. way of rebelling against corporate society, and never achieves anything but a self fulfilled prophecy. Here is what native Alaskans felt about this fool in general. "Krakauer's book made McCandless a heroic figure to many.Unlike Krakauer and many readers of his book, who have a largely sympathetic view of McCandless, some Alaskans have negative views of both McCandless and those who romanticize his fate. McCandless was unaware that a hand-operated tram crossed the river a quarter mile from the Stampede Trail, while a nearby shelter was stocked with emergency supplies, as described in Krakauer's book. However, the three nearby cabins were broken in and vandalized extensively at some point after mid-April, thus destroying food and first-aid supplies, as noted by Jon Krakauer. Alaskan Park Ranger Peter Christian wrote: "I am exposed continually to what I will call the 'McCandless Phenomenon.' People, nearly always young men, come to Alaska to challenge themselves against an unforgiving wilderness landscape where convenience of access and possibility of rescue are practically nonexistent ... When you consider McCandless from my perspective, you quickly see that what he did wasn't even particularly daring, just stupid, tragic, and inconsiderate. First off, he spent very little time learning how to actually live in the wild. He arrived at the Stampede Trail without even a map of the area. If he had a good map he could have walked out of his predicament ... Essentially, Chris McCandless committed suicide." Judith Kleinfeld wrote in the Anchorage Daily News that "many Alaskans react with rage to his stupidity. You'd have to be a complete idiot, they say, to die of starvation in summer 20 miles off the Park's Highway."[12] Thank you very much, but making a martyr out of a moron is just too much.

This movie came really close to being a classic. First of all it is an isolationist film (i.e.The Thing, Assault on Precinct 13, Dawn of the Dead), and mood wise it does a great job. Claustrophobia, and paranoia ensue. The problem with this film lies solely in its editing. There are a couple of scenes that just come out of nowhere and are short and make no sense. These could easily be fixed and I think the will I bet these will be re-edited for DVD. Otherwise the film is pretty good, very violent and pretty gory/ graphic. Overall this is a good film for Halloween, oh, wait it was put out weeks before Halloween. Well, see it anyways!

On a few previous comments regarding both "The Illusionist," and "Rocky Balboa," I had stated that not only those two, but others, were better than the Oscar winner "The Departed." Well, here is another. "Blood Diamond" is a very "grown up" film which delivers not only some intense drama, but also some good old fashioned action, not to mention, it's historical, and political perspective. The story is involved, the characters are engaging, and well developed, and to me, the finished product was very good. A number of other Oscar winners come to mind. This film is better than "Crash," not by much, and way better than both the nonsensical and overrated films "Traffic" and "The Departed." So do yourself a favor and watch this film, it is very solid, and DiCaprio delivers a surprisingly good performance considering he had to carry an accent through the whole thing. Great film!

Well, it's just one more movie to add to my list of 2006 films that were better than "The Departed." Lets see, this one, The Illusionist, and Rocky Balboa, all superior to The Departed. Anyways, The Last King of Scotland is a fine film. Very few flaws, as the story works around the time period of Ugandan ruler Amin. Whitaker excels in his rule as the paranoid and brutal ruler. Overall this film flows well. Do yourself a favor and brush up quickly on your Amin history and timetable it will help tremendously on your understanding of what is going on. I watched this film with subtitles on because accents were very thick and it helped very much. Great film!!!

The only reason I give this movie a four is due to the attention to detail from one period to another, other than that this film is an absolute mess. This film is overly confusing, and does not provide the viewer enough information to know what is really going on, or to care for that matter. Jolie's character is completely insignificant, aside from the fact that the character is strange from the beginning. Damon's character is completely boring. I directly attribute the problems of this film to the director Robert Deniro. For example there is a collage of scenes about 45 minutes into the film where the viewer is supposed to be absorbing what amounts to be a significant portion of the plot. Unfortunately in this ten minute dash we are exposed to at least 10 different parts of as many conversations, and we have no context in which to refer to, so frankly no one has any idea of what the hell is going on. I stopped caring after that, and it did not matter because nothing happened anyways.Very disappointing.

"Ameican Hardcore," is a pretty good documentary for those even a bit interested in the genre. Personally I found it heavily lacking in a number of departments. The film itself was put together pretty well over all and moves along at a good pace. What is lacking though is the appreciation of the entire other side of the West Coast scene. Most of the bands from San Francisco, or who centered themselves from S.F. were not covered at all. Obviously someone did not want to include Jello Biafra and DK, but whatever, they were there and they were important to the scene. Those from the mid-west probably felt a bit slighted by the fact that the Crucif*cks were not included as well. Way to many major bands were not even mentioned and it was very irritating. Overall this documentary was just okay. I was expecting much more considering that the book "American Hardcore" was quite a bit more thorough overall.

This was a very good film relative to a lot of the schlock that is out there these days, but Best Picture?! Give me a break. This is not even Scorsese's fifth best film in his cannon. Good performances, but the plot is unnecessarily confusing, and Nicholson looks like he is just going through the motions. It is worth viewing but it is not that great. I think this was a weak year for the academy, and they had to give Scorsese a "Best Picture" at some point in his career before he dies. I think this film will be relatively popular on DVD but it will not stand the test of time anywhere near Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, and the very underrated Casino.

I saw this film (expecting nothing more than closure for a character that I, and we have watched for thirty years) in the theaters when it was released. Well, I walked out of the theater in absolute shock. I could not believe that Stallone, after all of these years could resurrect this character the way he did. At the time I thought the film was a very fitting finale to the series. Much better than Rocky's 3,4,5. After seeing it just recently on DVD, like the first two of the series, the film stands up very well on it's own. As viewers, we know the story, the characters, and the history. Stallone tells a new tale that is not only a logical conclusion to the series, but an emotionally fitting one as well. The movie looked pretty slick over all. I don't understand the statements by previous reviewers, that the film looked cheap and poorly shot. I guess they do not recognize or understand the way Hi-Def looks. This film looks very raw, the way the original did years ago on (dark) film. Critics of the way the film was shot have not substantiated their opinions. I thought it looked clean, and authentic. I felt that this film was greatly over looked by people overall. It is very easy to "poo-poo" Stallone, but I think he did a very honest job. For me the only "commercial" movie that I thought was a better film than this one last year, was "The Illusionist," (by he way, "The Departed" is for the birds,)but that is my opinion, and we all have one. "Rocky Balboa,like ROCKY will stand for a long time, I think it will do very well on DVD, and be very much appreciated.