Biggieman2k4

what is interesting to me with all of the comments i have seen about this movie are the ones in the negative. it says clearly in the beginning of the film that this is the movie as it was intended to be seen. meaning the director and writer both know the movie was cut with scenes that lack high standard picture quality and there are a number of continuity errors but with that aside the story is for the better half what we were supposed to see. it doesn't look polished final copy because it was never finished. now with all that aside, superman 2: the Richard Donner cut is probably and could have easily be the greatest comic book sequel. i say this because we have to understand when these movies were shot, this was a time long before C.G.I., animatic, previsualization, etc. Donner's films were built on the platform of a phrase that he coined throughout the whole movie-making process called verisimilitude. basically what that means is bringing reality to the story. that was his bedrock principle throughout principle photography and it worked. the story is not tainted at all. which leads me to my point about the Donner cut. the reason why a lot of the scenes in the movie look so staged is because they were test shots. they were the actors auditioning for the role of the character and were never intended to be used in the final cut. the reason why the special effects look so crappy are because they used on such a short budget. since the Donner cut had so many continuity error and scenes spliced together they could work on straight to DVD. the reason why the acting is a little off-balance is because Donner unfortunately had to use scene's from Richard Lester's (the man who replaced Richard Donner directing superman II) pile of crap version of the Superman II. Donner was stuck with using it because they needed some scenes to cut to so that the story could move along. and understand that the majority of Richard Lester was ripped off of the ideals that Donner had created but done poorly by Lester. Richard Donner is an actor's director and one helluva storyteller given if you watched any of his other pictures: the Lethal Weapon series, The Goonies, The Toy, Ladyhawke, and on and on and on. i know the film looks low budget in some areas but in order for this picture to work in your imagination, let go of the idea that its low budget and focus on the story itself. realize that the story and primarily Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, Gene Hackman, Marlon Brando, and in all honesty the whole cast's performances helped elevate these movie's to being classic films. i think my final beef with everyone is, yes superman turns the world back in time again but understand this. the world turning backwards was originally intended to be in part 2 anyway but because they didn't know how to end part 1, they threw it in there. Superman 2 would have had a more glorious ending that the Donner cut did but Donner didn't finish the picture. regardless though i was more pleased to see a triumphant ending to Superman II like the world be turned backwards than ending the movie with a kiss that cause amnesia. Don't you think?~!!!

i saw higher learning for the first time when i was 16 y/o. i have to admit that i was scared as hell to go to college after i saw this movie. growing up in Miami where i was never faced with any type of racial angst, i would have probably said this movie was inaccurate. it wasn't until i was harassed* in college multiple times in a racial manner. if any of you think this a black man venting his anger, you are just that much more ignorant. my point is that higher learning in itself could seem unrealistic because of all of these issues being propelled at us at once. sexuality, race, prejudice, intolerance, anger, and on and on and on; john singleton only flaw with this movie i would say is that yes, he does tend play of the sympathies of blacks more. i we could seen a lot more redemptive qualities in the Remy character. i saw that character not hating blacks at all. granted, he did pull a gun on one and shot another but look at his character from the get go. it is obvious that Remy is a lost character trying to find acceptance at whatever corner he could. he only found acceptance with those Nazi assholes. however speaking as a director, the movie was cinematic ally his best. pay close attention to his methods of transitions in this movie. such a huge step from poetic justice. the flow of the movie stayed at an constantly inconstant state. meaning there was nothing that seemed forced but the pacing was on cue. plus, you had no idea what the hell was gonna happen next. higher learning may not be the most accurate portrayal of college life simply because it shows us simultaneously* all of the negative attributes of college. yet the story does prove its point and does very well. to sum it up, I LIKE IT.

when i found out they were making another batman movie last year, i have to say this was unpleasant news at the time. not since batman returns have i enjoyed seeing a batman movie in the theatre. i hate to knock on batman forever and batman and robin...........no i don't! i will say this, its obvious to say that the sequels created after Tim Burton left the project did not live up to our expectations. in all honesty, after Michael Keaton left the project, i think we were all done. no one has been able to carry the cape like Keaton did. up until last night did i believe that. Christian bale i will not say is better than Michael Keaton but if there was anyone who could succeed him, bale was the perfect choice. Christopher Nolan is a talent that is very well appreciated. as a student in film school, he is an inspiration to comic book genre films much like Sam Raimi, Bryan Singer, and off-course Richard Donner. i can vividly remember when i saw the first batman back in 1989. i remember all the hype that surrounded it and i remember walking out of the theatre being utterly amazed. straight up, i can say that i haven't had a feeling of walking out of a movie feeling like a kid in a long ass time. batman begins is worth the $9.00 to see. the conflict keeps, the story moves you and the actors and the production crew help enhance this timeless story to the level it was all those years ago in the summer of 89. thank you Christopher Nolan for giving this film student the incentive to stride for cinema greatness.

*contains spoilers*

you know, it is understandable to see why many were unsatisfied with the final installment of the matrix trilogy. my only complaint b eing is that this movie was just a continuation of reloaded and enter the matrix. however, is that a bad thing? if anything one could admire the boldness of a movie not following the typical Hollywood pattern of trilogy. that principle being that each movie has to have a wide stream of circumstances to complete that movie; when in fact this movie simply gave us a wide barrage of action and a subtle conclusion. i think that is why many were disappointed with it. to see our hero neo have such a simple demise rather than a strong, hardcore, and victorious defeat. the actual ending though confusing was appropriate as well. and to all of the viewers who were annoyed by the intricate dialouge of the movie, i have to ask why would you be surprised at this. i know it must suck to have to watch a movie or scene over and over to fully understand a part. but ask yourself this, how many times did you have to watch the first movie to get a clear and concise understanding of that world. for those who were upset that the majority of fighting took place in the real world rather than the matrix...........SO WHAT!!! i for one was pleased that the fighting was happening here as opposed to the matrix. why, because these characters fight so hard in the matrix, it was nice to see the world that these people were fight so valiantly to protect. notto mention that there was a terrific final fight in the super burly brawl between neo and his nemesis agent smith. i could give many other retorts to problems but that would be pointless. i can only say that i would suggest this movie to anyone and would also protest that this is a phenomenal ending to such a pivotal trilogy. 8 out of 10 stars!!!

OK let's be honest, all of us watched full house when we were kids. the shows was captivating in that Reagan era, family style. because of its popularity, john stamos and most of that cast will forever be remembered for those roles. now as trite as that show can be by todays standards, i don't see why one should bust john stamos' chops for the role in this movie. until i looked it up on this website, i had no idea that it made its way into a theatre somewhere. i saw it on t.v. and taped over 11 years ago and up until now had just figured it as a t.v. movie. so i had no standard as what it should have been otherwise. granted, the acting is a bit two-dimensional, the visuals aren't that great and the situation is unusual. but all in all, i would recommend this movie to people. not for its ability to break ground in cinema but anyone who is interested in watching an interesting movie that keeps you from start to finish and i can honestly say this ; DOES NOT DRAG! many movies should be as lucky to watch a flick and have your attention kept throughout the whole movie. so anyone who views this movie for the first time, i would recommend* this thought to try and keep while watching it. imagine it is a movie made for television and you should be OK. all in all 7 out of 10 stars.

as an actor and director, i feel torn with this movie. from the actors point of view, this is a wonderful acting tool to engage ones self in. the characters are uniquely interesting and keep your attention by a talented cast. however from a directors point of view; a storyteller in his own right, why the hell would one even attempt to create such a dark script. i feel that solondz is one these types of directors that attempts to disillusion us with a feeble story and pass it off as art. now i am the firm believer that art imitates life but the question now is what do we call art? if this example hold true than i could create a story about birds*** and pass it on as art. or i could even write a story about mundane routine of a Monday morning and have that perceived as art. plain and simple, that word art along with many others like genius, love, and freedom have been taken completely out of context. the idea that one can make a particular story but the reason of why one can is another. once that conclusion has been defined with a specific purpose than can it be debated with an artistic cause. there was no purpose in this story, there was no meaning and without that there is no conclusion. just 90 minutes of scenes intended for shock value and dark cynicism*. i was hoping to find a meaning in this film. granted, all movies need not a meaning but there was not even consistency in the movie. it wasn't even the sex scene or depressive state of the movie that bothered me, just the lack of substance and consistency made it a disappointing experience due to the fact that this movie came highly regarded from a good film friend. i think that by having films that are un-Hollywood can cataclysmically* reinforce ones love for the cinema. that's the beauty of it, there is no limit for creativity in this business but, ultimately one has ask the question, why do i want to make this movie. with that answered, everyone else can have a better picture of that picture.