NL-Proud

Potential spoilers ahead

This movie had a good idea, and approach, with exception to the ending. It may be that the ending was too disjointed with what came before. The CGI was done well, and the acting was above average. The story will make you think of our prejudices and why our fears seem to project those prejudices. So that aspect of the story was clear, and made relevant to society today. My approach to movie watching is how does it keep me interested. With this movie, I was interested until after he reached the lab in old NY. It just went downhill it seemed. I was waiting for the movie to end. I can't explain it, nor do I have an explanation as to how the ending could have been better. Maybe if they showed more of a connection to the 'racial' prejudice that was twined into the first part of the story, weather it be a resolution to the problem, or a reminder that maybe it will always be there. The ending just lost me in that I understood it, but just lost interest in it.

This movie is probably Charlton Hestons best. An epic that doesn't feel completely like an epic. It was slow in some places but necessarily so to develop character and the plot. I can easily see why it got so much academy acclaim.

I enjoyed this film from start to finish. The chemistry between Thornton, Willis and Blanchett was original.

The story was interesting in itself. The climax being set up at the start and then the story unfolding to get you to that point. The ending got me by surprise.

The acting was splendid, especially Thornton and Blanchett. They fit their characters so well you find yourselves rooting for them more and more as the movie progresses.

out of 10, I give it an 8

You watch this movie just for the fun of it. I mean just to lay back and not worry about realism, accuracy, story complexity, or academy award type acting. Because this movie has none of these, yet I enjoyed it. It was just....well...fun, nothing else.

A lot bad can be said about it, and I won't bore you with that, but the one major negative is that when the world is in trouble, its only the Americans and one reluctant Russian that can save us. In that regard, its a typical hollywood 'patriotic' film. Big whoop

on a scale of 1 to 10 I give it a 5

I am Canadian who was born in 71. I have an interest in the space program but not to the extent of learning its history. I knew that something bad happened with Apollo 13 but I didn't know what. So when I saw the movie, I was in true suspense as to what happens. The only thing I really did know was that they made it home alive.

Howard does a wonderful job in detailing what life is like for an astronaut of the early days of space travel. Hanks, Paxton and Bacon deserved nominations for their portrayals of the real astronauts, both giving us a glimpse of the professionalism of the astronaut and the human side that encompasses us all.

Good show Ron

I can't figure out why I like this film so much. The acting was kinda poor, with exception of Pfeiffer's role, which I thought she did a great job with. (I believe she stole the show) The effects leave a lot to be desired. The story was ok, you know vengeful penguin out to destroy his enemies and take over as leader type deal. Yet I am drawn to watch this movie again and still enjoy it.

Michelle Pfeiffer's role was not just a sexy catwoman, but a twisted dual personality of a sweet nerdish 'old maid' and the aggressive 'cat' dominatrix that she becomes. She draws the viewer in to sympathize with Selina and despite the fact she wants to do harm to the lead hero, we still root for through out. Maybe thats why I like this film so much.

two thumbs up.

And this coming from a thirty something heterosexual married male. Figure that one out will ya.

I just read a number of the posts and I find it amazing the hatred for this movie. IT WAS A MOVIE. Throughout the history of movie making there have been mediocre plots and mediocre acting. Unbelievable sequences and inaccurate historical portrayals. I believe this movie rates average to above average in all these.

This movie is typical Hollywood in every sense. Cameron wanted to do a movie that encompasses the non-fiction events of one of the most well known human tragedies with a fictional story. Fantasy meets non-fiction. So what if he didn't get all the historical events exactly right, but he did give an accurate sequence of events that lead to the tragedy. for example, The fact that Astor is on the stairwell as opposed to beneath the stack is irrelavent (even though his whereabouts cannot be truelly confirmed either way, the fact is he went down with the boat). The class stereotypes are very accurate. Todays society doesn't reflect such class division as it did at the turn of the century. Not all rich people in the movie were evil, just.....rich. The middle and third class just knew how to have a good time with what they had.

The story does leave something to be desired, but it is a love story that has to fit inside 3 days. It was ok.

What impressed me the most about the movie was the non-fiction that encompassed the story. A truely accurate dipiction of society of the turn of the century and the human errors that caused a horrible tragedy that should never have happened. 1500 people did perish with a very high percentage of them middle and 3 class. It still stirs something in me when I'm reminded of that stat.

I say hats off to James Cameron for having the courage to even attempt this extremely expensive film. I guess someone believed it could a success. Both at the box-office and in theatres.

1.8 billion. Someone liked it.

I enjoyed this film for its insights into fire and the underrated heroism that is a fire-fighter.

Yes, I agree that some of the scenes is not entirely accurate, but some give got to be there to actually see the scene. For example the scene inside the clothes store where little smoke was seen, yet in order too see the actions of the firefighters, smoke kinda gets in your eyes doesn't it?

I thought Kurt Russells performance was worthy of an academy nomination, and I'm not a 'die-hard' Russell fan, but I do like his work. He almost always fits the character he portrays.

The only negative I saw was the rip off of Hanibal Lector that Sutherland's character was.

Overall, a well put together film.

I read the book as a child and loved it. So when I had the chance to watch the movie years later on video, I was skeptical about how they could match the novels quality.

I was pleasantly surprised. The visuals we're breathtaking. The lack of dialogue in the first half only drew you in more. The differences are forgivable, if anything added some suspense to a plot I already knew how was going to unfold.

If you have never seen this movie, I recommend it, especially those who like direction over pure action.

I just finished watching the extended version of the film. I had watched the theater release last winter. And I am in agreement with those who rate this film so high.

But I also see that most of the negative reaction comes from those who have never read Tolkien. I had read the Hobbitt before seeing the film, and it gave me an appreciation for what Jackson tried to do with this movie. I have since read the novel Lord of the rings. The movie stays true to what Tolkien wanted to portray. For those who haven't read any of Tolkien's novels, the dialogue and description shown in the film could easily be lost. But for those who have read, they can understand what is being said, and know that it is vital to the whole story. Remember, this movie is only part one. A lot of what is in this film, will reflect in what will be shown in the following two movies.

As for length, I marvel at those who think they can shorten this film any more then was already done. The theater release was 3 hrs long. The extended version got something like an extra 30 mins added. Still Jackson has left a great deal of the book out. The whole 2-3 chapters of the book concerning the Old Forest and Bombadil is never mentioned. Nor the encounter with the farmer at Brandybuck. These alone would have been an extra 30 mins minimum to show.

After all this babble what am I saying. LOTR-Fellowship of the rings ranks as one of the best movies I have ever seen. Its right up there with other of my favorites such as The Godfather, Shawshank Redemption, Star Wars, Gladiator, and so on. But I have read the books. Maybe this is a pre-requisite to watching and being assured you will like it. 10 of 10

This mini series was the story of two novels in one. Random Passage was a story that revolved primarily around Levinia, and the Novel Waiting for time revolved around Mary Bundle. When Des Walsh wrote the screenplay he combined the two using Mary as the primary character.

I believe it accurately depicts life in Newfoundland back in the early 19th century. It is only in the last 50-60 years, that us Newfoundlanders have been able to kick against those that hold us down and start living for ourselves. It has been a difficult struggle, and still is in many circles given the stereotypes that still exist. This movie is a prime example of this. The Merchants ruled those around. The fisherman had no other way of making a living. The merchants dictated the price of the fish and often robbed the fisherman.

The coast of Newfoundland is rugged and unforgiving to those not prepared. Until the last 50 years or so, most coastal communities were isolated and to live, you lived off the land and the sea. You adapted or you died.

So I believe this movie is an accurate picture of how rough it was to survive, and Mary Bundle learned to adapt, without giving up her own sense of freedom (if I can use that word) to survive.

I give it 7 of 10

The Movie was sub-par, but this Television Pilot delivers a great springboard into what has become a Sci-Fi fans Ideal program. The Actors deliver and the special effects (for a television series) are spectacular. Having an intelligent interesting script doesn't hurt either.

Stargate SG1 is currently one of my favorite programs.