jcmann01

Interesting AND CONVENIENT that this movie and Hillary's America is coming out right before national presidential elections?

Okay, lol, 1st thing is 1st. This movie is bent on the idea that America has completely lost it's roots and is ripe for take over by foreign governments and dictators , which is the biggest fallacy in the movie. Second, that marshal law will be declared by some comic book villain in an ivory tower with his operation "Dark Star" plans? This reminded me of one of those old James Bond movies where he has to bring down a very rich bad guy who wants to rule the planet with nukes...lol. Third, this movie revolves around a Texas family with a big ranch in Lima with a daughter that resembles Sarah, the mother of the Terminator Resistance Leader, John Connor and even resembles her?

Okay, putting the movie together, the entire movie serves to promote the idea that America will fall apart and it won't take much to put in into a state of marshal law, which is perfect for these UN dictators to rise up and take over and conform it to the new world order. The only problem is that for the federal government to tell the military to do this, they would in fact cause anarchy and chaos among the soldiers enforcing such laws and this won't last because it would erode into desertion and civil war. After all, Americans are raised in a system of democracy and free thinking. If you take this away, it will cause mass rebellion and Washington doesn't want this to happen.

Common Sense tells me it would be much easier to keep things the way they are so people can pay their taxes on time and finance this country's huge budget and keep the crooked politicians rich??

That is why this movie is ridiculous!!

The Jack Ryan's life actually spans throughout three movies so far including Patriot Games, Clear and Present Danger (Staring Harrison Ford) and how Ryan began his career in this movie. However, the 1st two were filmed during the 90s and in the movies, which portray Jack Ryan later on as he moved up to deputy of CIA from being a Senator. The older movies portray Jack Ryan advanced in his CIA career long before 9/11 2001. In shadow Recruit, as a recruit, the movies portrays him in 2013 long after 9/11? So he becomes a recruit 1st and then goes back in time as he gets older? Whoever wrote this movie script didn't looks at the first two movies?

I know there are a lot of critics out there who may say horrible things about this movie, but if you are a practicing Christian and consider reading the Word of God and Prayer for others a worthwhile pursuit, then this movie is the right one for you! I will not spoil the movie for you, but really listen to what the old wise woman, Ms Clara, had to say because it is So very tried and true in my own life as well.

As for those who call themselves Christians and continue to criticize, mock and make fun of the movie, I can only point out Psalm 1:

1 How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!

2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night.

Though archaeological evidence does strongly suggest that Moses held rank as a general in Pharaoh's army and the depictions of Egyptian everyday life does seems real enough; the rest of the story, according to scripture, was completely distorted and misrepresented; in the usual Hollywood fashion.

I really don't know where to begin with the misrepresentations, the biblical distortions, and the usual embellishments that Hollywood has to offer, but what really got my blood boiling was how they misrepresented God and the fact that Hollywood attempted to explain away the miracles and faith that the REAL Moses had in the midst of these. Needless to say, this movie was, in my opinion, a horrible misrepresentation of the Bible story and the people producing it should stand in shame before God for releasing it! Here is a good example of what I am talking about: Parting of the Ocean Scene There was no real parting of the ocean scene. The tides just receded and the Israelites sort of waded to the other side as Moses led them with his Egyptian sword in hand (didn't see a staff?) and he kept waving that gold sword around like it was His holy scepter. Then he goes out to try to save the Egyptian king from drowning and they both got bombarded by the ocean rolling back in like a Tsunami, but somehow, they both survived a hundred foot wave crashing on them and both swam ashore to opposite sides.

My Conclusion: 3D effects really sucked and the movie was not worth the $16 matinée price I paid. There were only two other people in the theater and they rushed out before the colossal mess was finished.

I was looking for a nice romantic flick to bring my girlfriend to so it could set the mood for the evening. Well, that plan failed and I ended up bringing my ex to the movies to see it instead. It really touched me in a deep way that no other love story has in the past. Sounds kinda corny, but for me, it touched on some areas. Well, needless to say, we held hands all during the movie and more later.

Okay, so I read up on the reviews before coming to see this movie and they all made it sound like a boring box office flop, BUT reviews can be very deceiving because this was a diamond that was tarnished by viewers who had NO clue what a romantic flick this really is about! So my advice to you is to go and see it with an open mind and heart and let the movie just unveil itself to your heart and mind and see what happens... best wishes!

This movie could have been about a triumphant voyage across the open ocean if the sailor, had used a little bit of common sense and the proper communications equipment. I wish it had been about this, because that would have made the movie a hit.

First of all and most important, if your going to cross the open ocean, you need a much larger boat that is more sea worthy and has a good working engine with plenty of GAS. He used a small schooner made for large lakes and short distance trips. Second, if your going to cross the ocean, you always take others with you and have proper working equipment on hand. Third, you make sure there is another larger boat following you in case you run into serious issues during the trip. Based on this movie alone, I could put together a pretty comprehensive list of what NOT TO DO when crossing the open ocean.

Just about every trial he ran into, was due his own mistakes, with maybe the exception of the first one? At the end of the movie, the last thing he did was the most stupid thing all of. This man had no business going on this voyage. I suppose the movie was made to show arrogant amateur sailors who think they can take a trip like this alone that it isn't as easy as they might think?

However, the movie is interesting to watch him fumble about the boat trying to fix all his problems. There is no need for any dialog in the movie because the problems are pretty obvious to the viewer.

I grew up watching Woody Allen movies and though I was never a fan of his dry and quirky humor, I found it somewhat entertaining. I have seen him in some strange roles, but never would I have imagined that he would step into the role of a pimp. The concept in itself is outrageous, but he plays it off in his usual quirky New Yorkish way.

John Turturro was the perfect Gigolo for him to manipulate too being the quiet, submissive, but yet passionate Latin lover to arouse the women in order for Woody to get his piece of the pie.

The movie is lightly entertaining, but not enough to really get you laughing constantly. Some scenes got ridiculous though, IE the Jewish Inquisition with Woody Allen over the widow.

This is the kind of movie you watch when your bored on a weekday night after a long day's work and just hope that you will make it though without falling asleep.

The movie writers did a horrible job at putting this movie together. It was a combination of corny lines, slapstick humor, stupid non-sense that was supposed to make you laugh, meaningless conversations, endless scenes where couple put each other down, and repeated lines. For instance, there was a bar scene where Joel was drinking like a fish and said something to the bar tender and the bar tender said something back and they repeated their lines so many times, I thought something was wrong with the movie? It turned out that was supposed to make you laugh? About 1/3 of the way through the movie, I just shut the movie off and deleted it.

I will say that watching it on the big screen, gave it spectacular scenes during the initial flood and the voyage on the ocean.

However, like anything else Hollywood ever comes out with, that is supposed to be based on historical accounts of the Bible; BUT it bares little resemblance to written history. In this case, they took a wonderful Bible story and turned it into a ridiculous 3 ring circus; starring the Gladiator at center stage, Lord of The Rings to the Left, and Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" baby killer, running around on the Ark with a dagger on the right. You will get what I mean when you see the movie. No where in the scriptures does it say that Cain made it onto the ark or that transformer like creatures called "watchers," which were angles encased in rock, according to Hollywood, and were running around helping mortals to build industrial civilizations? Or that Methuselah handed out magical beans that could create forests complete with entire eco systems and performing Jesus like miracles on barren grand daughters, while in the midst of foraging on his hands and knees for berries in the forest? What's up with that??

They didn't need a bunch of Hollywood make-believe non-sense to ruin an already good bible story. If they had just stuck with the Bible's account of Noah, it would have turned out to be a magical treat along with the great scenery effects.

I will say that Jennifer Connelly and Emma Watson gave an impressive acting job for their given roles.

Warning: This review does contains spoilers, but PLEASE come back after seeing movie and then read it.

I saw the Life of Pi, in which the author attempts to make a few deeper points known about "What the Truth is," whether it be something that is easily believable with our minds or something that you just have to take on faith. In the end, the question is left up to the viewer to decide for themselves. In the movie, Pi, tells the writer that he was going to get him to believe in God by the end of the story, but this is left somewhat mysterious when all is said and done in the movie.

So, I will attempt to interpret what Pi was wanting to convey in the movie. I believe that intention here was to present 2 different stories about events that took place. The first story was what Pi actually experienced, but was so incredible, it sounded like he had made it up to cover his pain. The second story sounded more believable because it made sense, but much doubt was eventually cast on it. In the end the first story was prevailed as being the truth, which had to be taken by faith.

MY Theological Interpretation:

Over the centuries the Bible, in which the stories have been passed down from generation to generation were believed so much that this country's education system was based on the Bible during the 17th century. Now a days, with scientific points of view prevailing, much of the Bible is regarded by many as mere folklore stores that were told around fires and unbelievable to the questioning and the scoffers. So some take it upon themselves to create religions that may seem more believable and rationale to the majority. So they write books explaining the Bible to their followers.

Many have mocked the story of Moses crossing the Red Sea and being very exaggerated, but now we have archaeological evidence of it's truth and still, many refuse to believe the truth. Like Pi's stories, there can only be one truth that prevails in the end and that is what actually happened and not what made sense to those who listen. It is also interesting to note that Pi's life was preserved over the ocean for 270 days with a fierce Tiger and yet he survived the ordeal, which is a credit to Psalm 91.

Hebrews 11:6 says that without faith, it is impossible to please God. What this means is that God will not reveal himself to the faithless and those who constantly question His Word. Christians have a responsibility to give their testimony before the world, but like the 2 Japanese guys, the world fails to believe their testimony of the truth, but would prefer to believe in something that makes more sense to their minds.

PS It is by no coincidence that the character was named Pi, because their is no finite answer to this equation if you try to reason it out with your mind.

The footage drags on like the pioneers who were crossing the west in the movie. Notice I didn't say plot, because there is NO plot, no interesting story to tell, nothing interesting said by anyone in the movie, and no conclusion to the movie? It's just about some pioneers that hired a guide, who gets them all lost crossing the west. They eventually run into an Indian who can't speak a lick of English and may have been lost too? Then they start following the Indian around in the desert thinking he knows where he is going. Then the movie ends with the Indian just walking off into the sunset while the pioneers just stand there watching him?? I suppose the whole point of the movie is to see how hard it must have been for pioneers crossing the great expanse of the west, but there again most people already know this if they have studied Amercian history at all. So why make a movie about this?

This movie is just another Home Alone flick, except this time, it's a yellow lab named Zeus, that the Banisters reluctantly adopted. However, Zeus has a few issues, similar to Marlie (Marlie & Me) that persuade the mother to insist he be sent back to the pound. In the end the dog redeems himself with the family by appearing to catch two moron burglars. There are a few entertaining scenes in the movie, but I thought the dog and mice narrations were rather irritating to listen to. Overall, the movie was a rather amusing Christmas flick worth seeing just once.

Gary Valentine stars as the father and I have seen him do better in other movies, esp the Zoo Keeper, which was hilarious.

I normally like survival movies about people crashing somewhere in the wilderness and making it out alive (ie The Edge), but this one was horrible!! I don't know where the writers of this movie got their information about wolves and Alaska, but based on this movie it was mostly inaccurate. The writers know nothing about wolves in the wild? Wolves are not the trumped up predatory monsters as portrayed as in this movie and alpha males don't send their mates off to get barbequed and beheaded. The whole portrayal of wolf behavior is absolutely distorted. The writers should have watched National Geographic's Wolves of Yellowstone before creeping everyone out with this nonsense and undoing years of work by wild life conservationists like Shaun Ellis and Jim Dutcher.

I don't know where they got their information about Alaska, but it is inconceivable that someone would jump into a river in freezing temperatures and get out and walk around in the snow without dying of hypothermia as portrayed at the end of the movie.

The vulgarity was horrible, every seen was either violent or depressing, and their was this backdrop melancholic music that made everything worse. Oh, and then some genius decided to dupe in these distorted wolf cries & calls throughout the movie to creep viewers out.

I don't understand why such a talented star like Liam Neeson wasted his talents doing a movie like this? He should find better roles to play?

The movie is action packed with lots of suspense. As usual, Matt Damon did an outstanding job given his leading role in the movie.

However, any soldier resides in a chain of command and is supposed to carry out his orders or he gets relieved of duty and possibly court marshaled, esp during war. So, here we have a Chief Warrant officer from the Army running around questioning all the Intel he is given, talking back to higher ranking officers, disobeying orders, driving around Baghdad with his team getting mixed up in fire fights without consulting his superiors first, getting involved in CIA operations based on hunches, and sending out classified information to all the news networks. Then he walks into headquarters and gets in a big fight with a top ranking CIA officer. A perfect recipe for lifetime achievements at Leavenworth Penitentiary.

In a nutshell, Hollywood hasn't got the slightest clue about how the real world works, esp. the military..

This movie is a fast paced and action packed about a crack team of Navy SEALs sent to escort a hand full of American missionaries and about 70 tribal people out of a bloody war zone in Africa. Meanwhile about 300 war mongers are in hot pursuit on their trail to kill them all.

The movie started off realistically portraying the role of Navy SEALs following their orders in a military rescue special op, but about a quarter of the way through the movie, it stopped being a realistic Navy SEAL operation and started being a Bruce Willis Rescue Op and his usual "Die Harder" heroics that everyone is used to. Only now he is pretending to be a hard core soldier playing nice with his SEAL team.

The movie itself, though well meaning; in the fight against atrocities that continually go on in Africa; is really about Bruce portraying himself as the Lonestar cowboy hero again.

The Whole Concept Addressed: This movie must have been put out by some feminist organization trying to promote women in the military into more combat positions. Personally, I don't mind women in the military, but I am against women directly in combat. It's nasty business and no woman should be slinging a gun, going toe and fist; knife in hand on a combat field only to get captured, raped, and tortured by the enemy. What woman in her right mind would want to do this anyway? As for the plot; it was so glamorized by Hollywood & unrealistic, I laughed. Real SEAL CRT Training has little resemblance to the way it is portrayed in this movie. However, the movie keeps you entertained, esp with HOTTIE, Demi Moore. I would say it is worth seeing.

A Better alternative to this movie: Act of Valor is about real Navy SEALS in action. Now that is a good movie!

Basic Plot: Middle class couple had been married 31 years and their marriage had grown cold over the years, mainly because of the husband, who was an angry, nick picking old fart. The wife played by Meryl Streep, was the best thing going for him and he couldn't even see it. She finally seeks marital counseling and pushes him into attending with her. The rest you can see for yourself. Lots of quirky humor along the way. Meryl Streep, Tommy Lee Jones, and the counselor, played by Steve Carell, did an outstanding performance in this movie.

The acting was great, the plot was good too, BUT, the emphasis was completely ass backwards? This movies was obviously not put together by anyone who had any real marriage counseling experience? Most marriage counselors would start with rebuilding relationship fundamentals first; such as learning to FORGIVE past wrongs, being civil with each other, and reintroducing a mutual loving cooperation again long before sexual interaction. A healthy sexual relationship is the fruit of a healthy marriage between two spouses. However, in the movie, the counselor starts immediately investigating their sex life first and has them do all kinds of homework because sex sells. If all it took was sex to jump start a marriage, then there would be no such thing as divorce? If you want to see a movie that puts it all together correctly, in the right order, FIREPROOF (2008) is a must see, even if you think your marriage is healthy.

Plot: The possibilities of getting lost in the Grand Canyon escalate dramatically if you choose not to properly plan your trip into the canyon, use uncertified guides (esp with drinking problems), no wilderness survival training, no maps or compass, and have no way of communicating with the outside world. Having no food or water, lost in the canyon, under high heat conditions can alone kill you, much less the idea of wild animals attacking you? I must point out that idea about wolves in the Grand Canyon Park and outlying areas attacking people is totally absurd! Whoever thought this one up did not do much research because wolves, though they have been spotted in these areas on occasion, are for the most part rare and shy of humans. Timber wolves, which the movie portrays, mainly exist in Canada and the northwestern states towards Canada. So this part is completely unrealistic for an already busy plot. Wolves only act like this when they are starving to death, but the Timber wolves shown in this movie looked pretty well fed.

However this movie does make you think twice about roughing it alone out in no man's land. If you don't have the stomach to see what people have to do under desperate circumstances, then perhaps you need to look for another movie?